Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Aren’t the Democrats Trouncing the Republicans?

      by

      My big takeaway from this election season would be this: We’re about where we were. We entered this election season with a nearly evenly divided House and Senate in which the Democrats had a slight advantage. We’ll probably leave it with a nearly evenly divided House and Senate in which the Republicans have a slight advantage. But we’re about where we were.Nothing the parties or candidates have done has really changed this underlying balance. The Republicans nominated a pathetically incompetent Senate candidate, Herschel Walker, in Georgia, but polls show that race is basically tied. The Democrats nominated a guy in Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke and has trouble communicating, but polls show that that Senate race is basically tied.After all the campaigning and the money and the shouting, the electoral balance is still on a razor’s edge. What accounts for this? It’s the underlying structure of society. Americans are sorting themselves out by education into two roughly equal camps. As people without a college degree have flocked to the G.O.P., people with one have flocked to the Democrats.“Education polarization is not merely an American phenomenon,” Eric Levitz writes in New York Magazine, “it is a defining feature of contemporary politics in nearly every Western democracy.”Over the past few years, the Democrats have made heroic efforts to win back working-class voters and white as well as Black and Hispanic voters who have drifted rightward. Joe Biden’s domestic agenda is largely about this: infrastructure jobs, expanded child tax credit, raising taxes on corporations. This year the Democrats nominated candidates designed to appeal to working-class voters, like the sweatshirt-wearing Fetterman in Pennsylvania and Tim Ryan in Ohio.It doesn’t seem to be working. As Ruy Teixeira, Karlyn Bowman and Nate Moore noted in a survey of polling data for the American Enterprise Institute last month, “The gap between non-college and college whites continues to grow.” Democrats have reason to worry about losing working-class Hispanic voters in places like Nevada. “If Democrats can’t win in Nevada,” one Democratic pollster told Politico, “we can complain about the white working class all you want, but we’re really confronting a much broader working-class problem.” Even Black voters without a college degree seem to be shifting away from the Democrats, to some degree.Forests have been sacrificed so that Democratic strategists can write reports on why they are losing the working class. Some believe racial resentment is driving the white working class away. Some believe Democrats spend too much time on progressive cultural issues and need to focus more on bread-and-butter economics.I’d say these analyses don’t begin to address the scale of the problem. America has riven itself into two different cultures. It’s very hard for the party based in one culture to reach out and win voters in the other culture — or even to understand what people in the other culture are thinking.As I’ve shuttled between red and blue America over decades of reporting on American politics, I’ve seen social, cultural, moral and ideological rifts widen from cracks to chasms.Politics has become a religion for a lot of people. Americans with a college education and Americans without a college education no longer just have different ideas about, say, the role of government, they have created rival ways of life. Americans with a college education and Americans without a college education have different relationships to patriotism and faith, they dress differently, enjoy different foods and have different ideas about corporal punishment, gender and, of course, race.You can’t isolate the differences between the classes down to one factor or another. It’s everything.But even that is not the real problem. America has always had vast cultural differences. Back in 2001, I wrote a long piece for The Atlantic comparing the deeply blue area of Montgomery County, Md., with the red area of Franklin County in south-central Pennsylvania.I noted the vast socio-economic and cultural differences that were evident, even back then. But in my interviews, I found there was a difference without a ton of animosity.For example, Ted Hale was a Presbyterian minister there. “There’s nowhere near as much resentment as you would expect,” he told me. “People have come to understand that they will struggle financially. It’s part of their identity. But the economy is not their god. That’s the thing some others don’t understand. People value a sense of community far more than they do their portfolio.”Back in those days I didn’t find a lot of class-war consciousness in my trips through red America. I compared the country to a high school cafeteria. Jocks over here, nerds over there, punks somewhere else. Live and let live.Now people don’t just see difference, they see menace. People have put up barricades and perceive the other class as a threat to what is beautiful, true and good. I don’t completely understand why this animosity has risen over the past couple of decades, but it makes it very hard to shift the ever more entrenched socio-economic-cultural-political coalitions.Historians used to believe that while European societies were burdened by ferocious class antagonisms, Americans had relatively little class consciousness. That has changed.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu’s Corruption Charges in Israel: What to Know

      by

      Benjamin Netanyahu is on track to once again lead Israel as prime minister — while facing a corruption trial.Benjamin Netanyahu will make a remarkable comeback as Israel’s prime minister after general elections, and the concession on Thursday of the current leader, Yair Lapid, put his right-wing bloc on a glide path to victory. But looming over his return is the unfinished business of the State of Israel v. Benjamin Netanyahu, a long-delayed felony corruption case.Mr. Netanyahu, who faces a litany of bribery, fraud and breach of trust charges, has denied all accusations, vociferously attacking those who seek to prosecute him. The trial put Israel into uncharted territory, dominating political life and fueling a debate about the state of Israeli democracy and the country’s legal system.Now, with his comeback as prime minister apparently assured, Mr. Netanyahu has said that he will not use his authority to upend the legal process in his corruption trial. But some of his coalition partners have signaled a different plan.Here’s where the case stands.Mr. Netanyahu in his office in 2016.Uriel Sinai for The New York TimesWhen did the corruption case start?The investigations into Mr. Netanyahu’s conduct began in 2016, when the authorities pursued claims that the prime minister had a habit of performing official favors for wealthy businessmen in exchange for gifts both material and intangible.Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, was accused of grabbing up cigars and Champagne, and bracelets, bags and luxury clothes for his wife; disrupting investigative and judicial proceedings; and even demanding fawning coverage by two leading Israeli news outlets.In February 2018, the police formally recommended that he be prosecuted. In November 2019, he was indicted, and the trial began in May 2020. The Jerusalem District Court made its way through a list of more than 300 witnesses. But the trial, originally expected to last a year or more, has been delayed several times for various reasons, including once when a central witness cited “personal reasons” in 2021, another time because of coronavirus restrictions, and again in February this year, when the judge in the case tested positive for Covid.Mr. Netanyahu, center, leaving the courtroom during a hearing at his corruption trial in Jerusalem last year.Pool photo by Abir SultanWhat are the charges?The corruption trial combines three separate cases, known as Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000. (Mr. Netanyahu was cleared in a fourth case, Case 3000, which concerned the government’s procurement of German-made submarines.) Mr. Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, is also said to have received gifts but is not a defendant in the trial.One court is hearing all three cases at once, instead of one after the other, slowing down the prospect of a verdict any time soon.In Case 1000, Mr. Netanyahu is accused of accepting nearly $300,000 in gifts from 2007 to 2016 from the Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan and the Australian billionaire James Packer. In return, prosecutors say, the prime minister acted on Mr. Milchan’s behalf, including pressuring the Finance Ministry to double the duration of a tax exemption for expatriate Israelis like the producer after they return to the country from abroad. The indictment also accuses Mr. Netanyahu of lobbying the U.S. government to help Mr. Milchan renew his American visa and assisting with a merger deal involving a TV channel partly owned by Mr. Milchan.Mr. Packer is not accused of receiving anything in return for his gifts, and he and Mr. Milchan — who are not on trial — have denied wrongdoing.In Case 2000, Mr. Netanyahu allegedly discussed a quid pro quo arrangement in 2014 with Arnon Mozes, the publisher of Yediot Aharonot, one of Israel’s leading newspapers. Under the deal, the indictment says, Mr. Netanyahu was to receive supportive coverage from the paper. In exchange, he is accused of agreeing to consider enacting legislation that would curb the strength of Israel Hayom, a rival newspaper owned by Sheldon Adelson, a supporter of Mr. Netanyahu. But Mr. Netanyahu is not accused of following through on that promise. Mr. Mozes, also on trial, has denied any wrongdoing.In Case 4000, prosecutors claim that from 2012 to 2017, a telecom mogul named Shaul Elovitch and his wife granted favors to Mr. Netanyahu and his family in the hope that Mr. Netanyahu would not obstruct the Elovitches’ business interests. Mr. Elovitch is alleged to have repeatedly allowed Mr. Netanyahu and his family to shape the coverage of his news website, Walla. The Elovitches, who are on trial, deny wrongdoing.A protest against Mr. Netanyahu in 2020.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesWhy didn’t Netanyahu resign?Few sitting national leaders have stood trial on criminal charges over their official acts. Mr. Netanyahu was Israel’s first. But he was not legally obliged to step down: Israeli prime ministers can remain in office until they are convicted of a crime.Mr. Netanyahu addressed the nation live on television in 2018, shortly before the police released their findings, saying, “I feel a deep obligation to continue to lead Israel in a way that will ensure our future.”He continued: “You know I do everything with only one thing in mind — the good of the country. Not for cigars from a friend, not for media coverage, not for anything. Only for the good of the state. Nothing has made me deviate, or will make me deviate, from this sacred mission.”To some, his decision not to resign was evidence of a dangerous selfishness. Other analysts said that Mr. Netanyahu’s decision not to step aside when indicted, as his predecessors Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert had done when under investigation, was a national badge of shame and exposed a grave weakness that could become more critical the longer the trial lasted.But to Mr. Netanyahu’s supporters, the trial was proof of a deep conspiracy against him.Mr. Netanyahu during his 2020 campaign.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesHow much time could he face — if any?If convicted, Mr. Netanyahu could be sentenced to several years in prison. But some of his far-right coalition partners, who were celebrating the electoral victory even before Mr. Lapid conceded, may offer crucial assistance in keeping him out of jail.They have said they will push to legalize one of the crimes he is accused of committing — or even to end the trial entirely.The man who long ago earned the nickname the Magician for his uncommon knack for political endurance has proved his ability to sidle out of harm’s way — or at least delay severe consequences.When he arrived at the courthouse in East Jerusalem on a Sunday in 2021, Mr. Netanyahu pleaded not guilty, but not before delivering a fiery speech denouncing the case against him.He called the trial “an attempt to thwart the will of the people, an attempt to bring me and the right down.” He accused the police, the prosecution and “left-wing newspapers” of colluding against him but said he would not be cowed.“They don’t mind if some sort of obedient right-wing poodle comes instead, but I am not a poodle,” he declared.David M. Halbfinger More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Cherokees Ask U.S. to Make Good on a 187-Year-Old Promise, for a Start

      by

      The demand that Congress honor a treaty and seat a nonvoting delegate comes amid growing clashes over sovereignty and a tight race for Oklahoma’s governor, a Cherokee citizen.TAHLEQUAH, Okla. — In 1835, U.S. officials traveled to the Cherokee Nation’s capital in Georgia to sign a treaty forcing the Cherokees off their lands in the American South, opening them to white settlers. The Treaty of New Echota sent thousands on a death march to new lands in Oklahoma.The Cherokees were forced at gunpoint to honor the treaty. But though it stipulated that the Nation would be entitled to a nonvoting seat in the House of Representatives, Congress reneged on that part of the deal. Now, amid a growing movement across Indian Country for greater representation and sovereignty, the Cherokees are pushing to seat their delegate, 187 years later.“For nearly two centuries, Congress has failed to honor that promise,” Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, said in a recent interview in the Cherokee capital of Tahlequah, in eastern Oklahoma. “It’s time to insist the United States keep its word.”The Cherokees and other tribal nations have made significant gains in recent decades, plowing income from sources like casino gambling into hospitals, meat-processing plants and lobbyists in Washington. At the same time, though, those tribes are seeing new threats to their efforts to govern themselves.A U.S. Supreme Court tilting hard to the right seems ready to undermine or reverse sovereignty rulings that were considered settled, while new state laws may affect how schools teach Native American history. And tribes are embroiled in a caustic feud with Oklahoma’s Republican governor — despite his distinction as the first Cherokee citizen to lead the state — that has helped to make his re-election bid next week a tossup.Amid such challenges, the Nation is trying to cobble together bipartisan support for its delegate, who, if seated, would resemble the nonvoting House members representing several territories and the District of Columbia. Such delegates cannot take part in final votes, but can introduce legislation and serve on committees.A new hospital for the Cherokee Nation in Tahlequah. Many tribal nations are pouring income from sources like casino gambling into health care and other needs.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesKimberly Teehee, the Cherokee Nation’s nominated delegate for a nonvoting seat in Congress. She is a Democrat and former adviser to President Barack Obama.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesKimberly Teehee, nominated in 2019 for the delegate position, said the role would open a new space for Indigenous representation. “We have priorities that are similar to other tribes when it comes to deployment of dollars, accessing health care, public safety, preserving our culture,” Ms. Teehee said. “This treaty right allows us to have a seat at the table.”The Cherokee Nation has about 430,000 citizens, Ms. Teehee said, which is more than the combined population of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all of which have their own delegates in Congress.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Democrats’ Mounting Anxiety: Top Democratic officials are openly second-guessing their party’s pitch and tactics, saying Democrats have failed to unite around one central message.Social Security and Medicare: Republicans, eyeing a midterms victory, are floating changes to the safety net programs. Democrats have seized on the proposals to galvanize voters.Debunking Misinformation: Falsehoods and rumors are flourishing ahead of Election Day, especially in Pennsylvania. We debunked five of the most widespread voting-related claims.So far, the Nation has drawn backing from Native American leaders across the country, as well as measured support from members of Oklahoma’s congressional delegation, including Representative Tom Cole, a Republican and member of the Chickasaw Nation.The House Rules Committee, led by Mr. Cole and Representative Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is expected to hold a hearing on the Cherokee delegate in mid-November. Even if control of Congress changes in next week’s midterm elections, that could open the way for a vote before the end of the year.Tribal nations across the United States are closely following the debate, eyeing the possibility that it could set a precedent. The Choctaw Nation may also have the right to a delegate under the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830, signed before its removal from what is now Mississippi. Similarly, the Delaware Nation’s treaty with the United States in 1778 could allow its members a delegate.“I think you’ll see a significant outcry from the rest of Indian Country saying, ‘We want one, too,’” said M. Alexander Pearl, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma and a citizen of Chickasaw Nation. “And I think that they’re right.”Still, the Cherokees could face headwinds in the deeply divided House. Ms. Teehee is a Democrat and former adviser to President Barack Obama. A spokesman for Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the Cherokees’ effort.Mr. Cole, the Oklahoma Republican, has said that he doesn’t object to seating the delegate, but he also noted that “there’s a lot of challenges to it,” including the question of dual representation in the House.“There’s a lot of people that will say, ‘Well, that delegate’s chosen by a council, not by a general election,’” Mr. Cole said this year. “And Cherokees then get two votes: your vote for a council member and their vote for the congressman of their own district, so they sort of get to two bites of the apple.”Downtown Tahlequah on the Cherokee Reservation. The Cherokees were forced to march to Oklahoma after their land in the American South was signed over for use by white settlers.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesSeveral Cherokee leaders and representatives of the federal government celebrated the opening of a meat-processing plant in Tahlequah last month.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesA report by the Congressional Research Service raised other potential legal issues, including the possibility that the delegate provision would not apply now that Oklahoma is a state, not Indian Territory.The debate is lifting the veil on one of the most contentious periods between the United States and Indigenous peoples, when about a quarter of the 16,000 Cherokees who walked what’s known as the Trail of Tears died on their way to Oklahoma. “This is a chance to finally reckon with ethnic cleansing, and massive and catastrophic loss of life,” said Julie Reed, a historian and Cherokee Nation citizen who teaches at Penn State University.The push for a delegate after nearly two centuries also reflects the wider effort by Native Americans to exercise self-governance in ways that would have been unrecognizable to previous generations in Indian Country, a federal designation for land under tribal jurisdiction.Native candidates have recently won congressional seats in states ranging from Alaska to Kansas. Some tribes are buying back ancestral lands. And Indigenous nations are expanding their own criminal justice systems across the country.“The 1950s was the lowest point of Indian sovereignty,” said Robert J. Miller, a citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and a law professor at Arizona State University, citing the failed attempt by the U.S. government to disband tribes and relocate their members to cities. “The comeback has been incredible.”Such breakthroughs, however, are taking place against the backdrop of other challenges, including those before the Supreme Court. In one ruling in June that upended longstanding precedents, the justices expanded the power of state governments over tribal nations.The 5-4 ruling, which allows states to charge non-Indians for crimes committed against Indians on tribal land, stunned experts on Native American law and weakened a major decision from just two years before that had established the authority of tribal or federal courts on Indian land. (Tribal courts would retain authority over Native Americans who commit crimes on the reservation.)Another case set to be heard by the court this year, challenging a 1978 law giving Native Americans preference in adopting Native children, could be just as unsettling. The law was intended to put an end to policies allowing Native children to be forcibly taken from their homes and placed by child welfare agencies in non-Native homes.Plaintiffs, including the State of Texas, argue that the law created a system illegally based on race. But many tribal nations, including the Cherokees, have lined up against the challenge.New measures at the state level are also flaring tempers, including an Oklahoma law banning schools from teaching material that could cause students discomfort or psychological stress because of their race.Fourth graders studying at the Cherokee Immersion School. A lawsuit by teachers and civil rights advocates says that an Oklahoma law could limit the teaching of Native American history.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesChuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, center, said it was “time to insist the United States keep its word” and seat a Cherokee delegate to Congress.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesGov. Kevin Stitt signed the law as part of a wave of legislation against “critical race theory,” a phrase used by conservative leaders to describe what they see as efforts to infiltrate classrooms with lessons about structural racism.A lawsuit by teachers and civil rights advocates warned that the law could silence classroom discussion about subjects like the Trail of Tears. And a high school English teacher in the town of Dewey, Okla., recently said she would stop teaching “Killers of the Flower Moon,” the best-selling book by David Grann about the murders of wealthy Osage people in the 1920s.Because the Osage were targeted for their race, the teacher told The Oklahoman that she was afraid of losing her license under the new law.Whitney Red Corn, a director of an early learning center and member of the Osage Nation Congress, said the law felt like “pushback” at a time when tribal nations were exercising rights. “It’s heartbreaking for me that something from our history could be avoided because it’s hard to hear,” said Ms. Red Corn, who took part in an Osage vote calling for the repeal of the law.One of the most bitter disputes of the moment involves Oklahoma’s largest tribes and Governor Stitt, a mortgage banker. After taking office, the governor proposed sharp increases in the fees that the tribes pay to operate more than 100 casinos around the state, prompting backlash.Mr. Hoskin, the Cherokee chief, said he expected a different approach from Mr. Stitt as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. (The New York Times and High Country News previously reported on claims that his citizenship may have been fraudulently obtained by an ancestor, which Mr. Stitt has called “unsubstantiated slander.”)Mr. Stitt has clashed repeatedly with Oklahoma’s tribes. In June, he celebrated the Supreme Court ruling diluting the authority of tribal nations. Donelle Harder, a spokeswoman for Mr. Stitt, declined to say directly whether he supported or objected to the efforts to seat a Cherokee delegate.Regarding Mr. Stitt’s relations with tribal nations, Ms. Harder said, “Governor Stitt has worked to create more fair opportunities for all sovereign nations and all people who call Oklahoma home.”Five of Oklahoma’s largest tribes have publicly endorsed Mr. Stitt’s rival, Joy Hofmeister, a former Republican who switched parties last year. Recent polls in the heavily Republican state have shown the race in a dead heat.Mr. Hoskin called the clash with Mr. Stitt a crucial factor in the Cherokee efforts to bolster sovereignty: “I think he’s the most anti-Indian tribe governor in the history of this state.”Emily Cochrane More

    • 63 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Grass Roots, Part 2

      by

      Listen and follow ‘The Run-Up’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Amazon MusicThis moment in politics will be defined by shifts at the grass-roots level. It wasn’t long ago that Democrats used to brag about the coalition they had built — full of young people, minority voters and college-educated women. Today, we talk to members of the Democratic base, many of whom no longer see a clear path forward for the party.Tim Gruber for The New York TimesOn today’s episodeAstead Herndon, host of “The Run-Up,” spoke with voters who had participated in New York Times polling, including Delaney Elliott Miller, Nelson Aquino, Katharine Hinson and Rochelle Nelson.Additional readingIn the final days of the midterm elections, top Democratic officials are openly second-guessing their party’s campaign tactics, saying Democrats have failed to unite around one central message.Once a G.O.P. stalwart, Representative Liz Cheney has been hitting the trail for Democrats. Her approach is part of a last-ditch push by Republican opponents of former President Donald J. Trump to try to thwart a comeback of his political movement.Credits“The Run-Up” is hosted by More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Can Lee Zeldin Reinvent His Way to the NY Governor’s Mansion?

      by

      SHIRLEY, N.Y. — As a young U.S. Army lawyer of unmistakable ambition, Lee Zeldin could almost see his future unfurling before him. It was his first stint in Iraq, and he was already imagining the kind of distinguished career in uniform that would have laid the groundwork for one in politics.Then a Red Cross message arrived on the base where Mr. Zeldin was embedded as a captain with the 82nd Airborne Division. His girlfriend had gone into dangerously premature labor with twin girls. Doctors were not optimistic about the babies’ survival. His commanding officer sent him home to mourn.“This I vividly remember the emotion of,” Mr. Zeldin, now a conservative congressman, recalled in a recent interview. “My priorities became all about my daughters.”The girls survived after months in the hospital. But rather than returning to Iraq, Mr. Zeldin took a desk job back at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, got married and then was discharged. At just 27, he found that the life he had imagined had veered off course.It was not the first time, nor the last. As a high school senior here on the South Shore of Long Island, Mr. Zeldin sought a prestigious appointment to West Point, only to fall short. After leaving the Army in 2007, he almost immediately entered a race for Congress, hoping to jump-start his political career. He lost in a blowout.But in every case, Mr. Zeldin has shown aptitude for finding a quick path to reinvention that has helped fuel his political ascent. Now, at age 42, it has put him closer than any Republican since George E. Pataki two decades ago to one of the nation’s most influential political posts, the governorship of New York.A few hundred Zeldin supporters attended a rally on Monday in Westchester County, traditionally an area controlled by Democrats. Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesThough Gov. Kathy Hochul, the Democratic incumbent, remains the front-runner, Mr. Zeldin’s late surge in the polls has shocked even political strategists and sent Democrats scrambling to prop up their candidate. With Ms. Hochul’s huge war chest and a vast Democratic registration advantage, few expected Mr. Zeldin to come close to winning, and perhaps with good reason: He does not easily fit the profile of a New York power player.In a state shaped by wealthy business interests and often governed by larger-than-life personalities and family dynasties, Mr. Zeldin is an outlier. He grew up in law enforcement households of modest means. He can be introverted and awkward with voters. And in a state dominated by the political left, he is probably the most conservative serious contender for the governorship in modern memory — even voting to overturn the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021.Yet a careful review of his public and private life, including two dozen interviews with family, friends, colleagues and critics, shows that Mr. Zeldin’s emergence as a political force stems from decades of meticulous planning, comfort with taking risks, well-timed alliances with more powerful Republicans and, above all, a knack honed from a young age for what allies call adaptation but his critics view as a more cynical political shape-shifting.Those qualities have been on full display in this fall’s campaign, as Mr. Zeldin moved swiftly to tap into two powerful currents of discontent that Democrats appear to have misjudged and that threaten to scramble the state’s usual political order: painful inflation eroding New Yorkers’ sense of financial well-being and fears about rising crime.“He’s grabbed the right issues and hasn’t let go,” said Rob Astorino, who lost to Mr. Zeldin in this year’s Republican primary.Mr. Zeldin, center, has heavily courted the Hasidic vote during his campaign stops in New York City, including a recent visit to Williamsburg, Brooklyn.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesBut his instincts have also been evident as he tries to execute another on-the-fly transformation, playing down hard-line positions that served him well while he climbed the Republican ranks in Albany and Washington but are now politically inconvenient, while offering scant details on some of his latest policy proposals.Who Is Lee Zeldin Up Against?Card 1 of 5Gov. Kathy Hochul’s rise to power. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Denmark’s Center-Left Coalition Wins Election Majority

      by

      An unpredictable race ultimately gave the governing Social Democratic Party its best showing in two decades, though analysts said it looked set to form a more centrist government.COPENHAGEN — Denmark’s center-left coalition emerged with a majority of parliamentary seats early Wednesday, after a tight overnight count in an unpredictable general election gave the governing Social Democratic Party its best showing in two decades.The Scandinavian kingdom is still headed for some uncertainty, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen saying she would formally disband the government and resign her position, setting the stage for a cross-party negotiation that analysts have said is likely to result in a more centrist administration.In a speech in the early hours of Wednesday celebrating the result, she said that her party had been elected to form a “broad government,” and expressed a desire to work with parties across the political spectrum.But Ms. Frederiksen, who called early elections in response to anger over a mink cull during the coronavirus pandemic, acknowledged that she was compelled to form a new government because, “It is clear that there is no longer a majority behind the government in its current form.”With 100 percent of the votes in Denmark counted, the center-left Social Democrats had 50 seats, the most for any party, with the center-right Venstre in second place. With left-leaning seats from the autonomous nations of Greenland and Faroe Islands, the current center-left coalition snagged a majority of one in the 179-seat Parliament.A new party, the Moderates, led by the former Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, came in third with 16 seats, returning Mr. Rasmussen to the Parliament. It was a strong showing, and analysts had said Mr. Rasmussen could play a kingmaker role if left and right were evenly balanced, but the Social Democrats’ success will significantly diminish his influence.Instead, according to Kasper M. Hansen, a professor of political science at the University of Copenhagen, the focus would be back on Ms. Frederiksen.“The whole discussion will now be: How will she negotiate with the other parties?” he said, adding that Ms. Frederiksen had promised to bridge divides across the political spectrum. “We will see a prime minister that will be working across the middle.”Another new party, the right-wing Denmark Democrats — founded by Inger Stojberg, a former immigration minister who was sentenced to two months in jail for illegally ordering the separation of some asylum-seeking couples — also gained 14 seats.Jasmina Nielsen More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Qué significa la victoria de Lula en Brasil para el clima

      by

      Durante sus mandatos anteriores, el presidente electo ayudó a reducir las tasas de deforestación en la selva amazónica. Ahora dice que quiere volver a hacerlo.RÍO DE JANEIRO — En las elecciones más reñidas desde que el país regresó a la democracia en 1985, los electores decidieron traer de regreso al expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, quien hizo del medioambiente una piedra angular de su campaña, y rechazaron al mandatario en funciones, Jair Bolsonaro, cuya presidencia vio un fuerte aumento de la deforestación.“Brasil está listo para reanudar su liderazgo en la lucha contra la crisis climática”, dijo el domingo Da Silva en su discurso a sus seguidores tras la victoria. “Probaremos una vez más que es posible generar riqueza sin destruir el medioambiente”.El compromiso es importante porque Brasil contiene gran parte de la selva del Amazonas. En este momento, el bosque absorbe el dióxido de carbono de la atmósfera que calienta el planeta y lo almacena en las raíces de los árboles, las ramas y el suelo. Según un cálculo, hay de 150.000 a 200.000 millones de toneladas métricas de carbono encerradas en el bosque. Pero eso podría cambiar. Si la deforestación continúa, la selva pronto puede convertirse en un emisor neto de gases de efecto invernadero.La región es también uno de los lugares con mayor biodiversidad en la Tierra, y protegerla es clave para defendernos de una crisis mundial de biodiversidad.De vuelta a una lucha conocida: contra la deforestaciónCuando Lula da Silva asumió el cargo por primera vez en 2003, las tasas de deforestación eran más del doble de lo que son hoy. Él promulgó políticas que las redujeron un 80 por ciento. El ritmo más bajo de deforestación se registró dos años después de su renuncia en 2010.p y alentó a sus partidarios a continuar con la minería ilegal. Las tasas de deforestación comenzaron a dispararse nuevamente. Brasil perdió más de 3 millones de hectáreas de la selva amazónica entre 2019 y 2021.Quemando para limpiar la tierra en el estado de Amazonas en septiembre.Michael Dantas/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAhora, Da Silva dice que planea reanudar las políticas que redujeron la pérdida de bosques.“Ahora lucharemos por el fin de la deforestación en el Amazonas”, dijo. “Brasil y el planeta necesitan una Amazonía viva”.Pero la resistencia a las políticas para proteger el bosque probablemente será fuerte entre los partidarios de Bolsonaro, tanto en el Congreso como en la Amazonía. Bolsonaro ganó en más de la mitad de los estados que componen la selva.El presidente ha defendido durante mucho tiempo las industrias maderera, minera y ganadera. Si bien son destructivas para el bosque, estas industrias, que a menudo operan de manera ilegal, también brindan algunas de las pocas oportunidades económicas en la región.Fuera de Brasil: el centro de atención está en el sur globalLos dos mandatos de Da Silva como presidente, de 2003 a 2010, estuvieron marcados por iniciativas para reformar los órganos de gobierno mundial, como el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, y para elevar el perfil de los países en desarrollo en los asuntos mundiales.Hay señales de que podría volver a hacer de esos esfuerzos una prioridad, esta vez con un énfasis especial en los problemas climáticos.Él puede “movilizar a otros países en el sur global para insistir que cualquier reforma que se haga a la gobernanza global asuma el tema del clima con seriedad, pero que esto también tiene aportes de los países en desarrollo”, dijo Adriana Abdenur, quien dirige Plataforma Cipó, una organización de investigación en Brasil que se enfoca en la política climática.Meses antes de las elecciones, los asesores de Da Silva se estaban coordinando con Indonesia y la República Democrática del Congo a fin de presionar a las naciones ricas para que amplíen su financiamiento para proteger a los bosques. Marina Silva, su exministra de Medioambiente, dijo a Reuters el lunes que Da Silva enviaría a un representante a la COP27, la cumbre climática mundial que comienza el domingo en Egipto. Un portavoz de Da Silva dijo que el asunto aún se estaba decidiendo.El principal asesor de asuntos exteriores de Da Silva, Celso Amorim, dijo que el presidente electo también planeaba invitar a los líderes regionales a una cumbre sobre la selva amazónica en 2023. Es una señal de que planea fortalecer la Organización del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica, lo cual podría facilitar a los países de la región unirse para diseñar estrategias que protejan el bosque y atraigan inversión extranjera para proyectos de desarrollo sostenible.Cuando Da Silva era presidente, Brasil creó uno de los mecanismos más importantes para la cooperación climática en la gestión forestal, el Fondo Amazonía. De 2009 a 2019, Noruega y Alemania donaron más de 1200 millones de dólares al fondo, que se convirtió en uno de los mecanismos de financiación más importantes para las agencias de protección ambiental en Brasil.Bolsonaro disolvió el órgano rector del fondo, que congeló todas sus operaciones, pese a que su gobierno luchaba por combatir los delitos ambientales. El domingo, el ministro de Clima y Medioambiente de Noruega dijo a los periodistas que se pondría en contacto con Da Silva para reanudar la cooperación entre los dos países.Está previsto que Da Silva asuma la presidencia el 1 de enero.Manuela Andreoni, actualmente radicada en Brasil, escribe en el boletín Climate Forward. Anteriormente fue becaria en Rainforest Investigations Network, donde examinó las fuerzas que impulsan la deforestación en la Amazonía. @manuelaandreoni More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu Holds Slight Lead in Israeli Election, Exit Polls Show

      by

      If the right-wing bloc does eke out a narrow victory, it will allow Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, to return to office even as he stands trial on corruption charges.JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing alliance may have won a narrow lead in Israel’s fifth election in less than four years, exit polls suggested on Tuesday night, giving him a chance of returning to power at the helm of one of the most right-wing governments in Israeli history.Three broadcasters’ exit polls indicated that Mr. Netanyahu’s party, Likud, would finish first and that his right-wing bloc was likely to be able to form a narrow majority in Parliament.But exit polls in Israel have been wrong before, particularly in tight races — and they exaggerated Mr. Netanyahu’s eventual tally in the last election, in March 2021.If the right-wing bloc does eke out a narrow victory, it will allow Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, to return to office even as he stands trial on corruption charges.Regardless of whether Mr. Netanyahu wins back power, the election was a triumph for Israel’s far right.An ultranationalist religious alliance that backs Mr. Netanyahu was projected to become the third-largest bloc in Parliament, highlighting how the election was construed by many right-wing Jewish Israeli voters — unsettled by Arab participation in Israel’s outgoing government — as a chance to reinforce the country’s Jewish identity.The far-right alliance seeks to upend Israel’s judicial system, end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the occupied West Bank and legalize a form of corruption that Mr. Netanyahu is accused of committing.Prime Minister Yair Lapid arrives at a polling station in Hod Hasharon, Israel, on Tuesday.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York Times“The time has come for us to be the landlords of our country,” Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of Mr. Netanyahu’s new far-right partners, said in a speech early on Wednesday morning.Mr. Ben-Gvir seeks to grant legal immunity to Israeli soldiers who shoot at Palestinians, and deport rival lawmakers he accuses of terrorism. Until recently, he hung a portrait in his home of Baruch Goldstein, who shot dead 29 Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in 1994.“The public voted for a Jewish identity,” Mr. Ben-Gvir added, as his supporters chanted “death to terrorists” in the background.At 3 a.m., Mr. Netanyahu arrived at the Likud party headquarters in Jerusalem and was given a triumphant reception by the party faithful. Though he cautioned that the final results were not yet in, he nevertheless delivered a kind of victory speech, telling his supporters, “If the true results reflect the projections, I will establish a national government that will look after everyone.”In an effort to appeal to all Israelis, and assuage the fears of his critics, he said he intended to work to heal the rifts within Israeli society, as well to seek a broader peace with Israel’s neighbors. He spoke of “restoring national pride” in the Jewish state, but added that Israel was a country that “respects all its citizens.” He made no mention of his allies’ divisive proposals to overhaul and weaken the justice system.Clearer results may not emerge until Wednesday morning, and final numbers will not be announced until Friday. Party leaders will not be asked to nominate a prime minister before next week.But if the exit polls prove to be correct, Israel may have ended a four-year political deadlock in which no leader could win a stable parliamentary majority, leaving the country without a national budget for long stretches and repeatedly returning Israelis to the ballot box.For the first time since 2019, the country could be governed by a parliamentary majority formed from a single ideologically aligned bloc — reducing the risk of infighting in the coalition and the likelihood of another early election. In addition to the far-right, Mr. Netanyahu’s likely coalition includes two ultra-Orthodox parties that oppose the secularization of Israeli public life.A government led by Mr. Netanyahu and featuring Mr. Ben-Gvir would bring down the final curtain on one of Israel’s most diverse coalitions ever: Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s eight-party alliance, which united political opponents from the right, left and center, and included the first independent Arab party to join an Israeli governing coalition.If the exit polls are accurate, the leaders of the parties in Mr. Netanyahu’s bloc will be able to formally nominate him for prime minister next week, as long as they can seal a coalition agreement. Two of Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies have said they will push to lead ministries that oversee the army and the police — appointments that Mr. Netanyahu has expressed wariness of, potentially slowing down coalitions negotiations.Adjusted projections early Wednesday morning indicated that Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud finished first, with 30 to 32 seats, while his wider right-wing bloc won 62 seats, according to all three main television channels, enough to form a narrow majority in the 120-seat Parliament.A polling station in the city of Bnei Brak, Israel, on Tuesday.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesMr. Lapid’s centrist party, Yesh Atid, was projected to win 22 to 24 seats, and his wider alliance 54 to 55 seats. An unaligned party won the remaining seats.That calculus could change quickly as real results come in. One Arab party, Balad, was teetering just below the electoral threshold, 3.25 percent of the total vote. Should Balad reach the threshold, analysts said, that would change all the calculations and reduce Mr. Netanyahu’s lead, potentially depriving his bloc of a majority.Early Wednesday, the central elections committee said that the final voter turnout by 10 p.m., when the polls closed, was 71.3 percent. That was the highest since Israel’s 2015 election, when turnout was 71.8 percent, but below some previous votes.Israel’s political gridlock began when Mr. Netanyahu declined to leave power after being placed under investigation on accusations of corruption. His decision left the country roughly evenly divided between voters who thought he should now stay away from politics and those who believed he should stay.An outright victory for Mr. Netanyahu would not resolve a more protracted debate about the kind of society Israelis want — a debate that was central to the election campaign.Mr. Netanyahu’s bloc presented the vote as a quest to preserve Israel’s Jewish character. He and his allies targeted Jewish Israelis alienated by Arab involvement in Mr. Lapid’s departing government and unsettled by a spasm of ethnic unrest between Arabs and Jews in Israeli cities last year.By contrast, Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents presented the election as a bid to protect Israel’s liberal democracy. In particular, they warned of his dependence on a far-right alliance that has frequently antagonized Israel’s Arab minority and seeks to remove checks and balances on the lawmaking process.Outside a polling station in Beit Shean, Israel, on Tuesday.Amit Elkayam for The New York TimesOnce again, Mr. Netanyahu’s fitness for office was the campaign’s defining theme. He was placed under investigation in 2016 on charges related to bribery, fraud and breach of trust.Three elections ended inconclusively in 2019-20, leaving Mr. Netanyahu in power but unable to pass a budget, and forcing Israelis to return each time to the ballot box.Mr. Netanyahu was ousted after a fourth election in 2021, when a former right-wing ally, Naftali Bennett, broke ranks to lead a coalition with Mr. Lapid’s centrist party and seven others, including Raam — the first Arab party to join an Israeli government.That alliance collapsed in July amid profound ideological disagreements among its members, leading Mr. Bennett to make way for Mr. Lapid and call for another election.Then followed a brief, downbeat and stop-start campaign in which the parties and a tired electorate were distracted by a run of four Jewish holidays through September and October.Mr. Netanyahu portrayed himself as the only candidate able to keep Israel safe, portraying a border deal sealed recently by Mr. Lapid with neighboring Lebanon as a weak compromise that had endangered Israel’s security.The far-right alliance allied to Mr. Netanyahu, Religious Zionism, often eclipsed him during the campaign through their populist promises to loosen judicial oversight over lawmaking, grant legal immunity to Israeli soldiers who shoot at Palestinians, and deport rival lawmakers they accuse of terrorism.A campaign poster of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Ramat Gan, Israel, on Tuesday.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesThe leader of Religious Zionism, Bezalel Smotrich, has described himself as a “proud homophobe” and said that Israel’s Arab minority had survived in Israel only “by mistake,” after Israel’s founders didn’t expel enough of them in the wars surrounding the creation of the state in 1948. He has also supported segregated maternity wards for Arab and Jewish women, and said Jewish developers should not have to sell homes to Arabs.His colleague, Mr. Ben-Gvir, was barred from serving in the Israeli Army because he was considered a security threat, and recently described Meir Kahane, an extremist rabbi who wanted to strip Arab Israelis of their citizenship, as his “hero.”Throughout the campaign, Mr. Ben-Gvir presented himself as an enforcer of law and order. He frequently visited areas of pronounced tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, at one point drawing his handgun and calling on his police escorts to shoot at nearby Arabs.A victory for Mr. Netanyahu would eliminate the already unlikely chance of resuming peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Throughout the campaign, he presented himself as a bulwark against the creation of a Palestinian state — the so-called two-state solution — while allies like Mr. Ben-Gvir advocated ending Palestinian autonomy altogether.But though Mr. Lapid supports a two-state solution, he would also be unlikely to push for peace if he remained in government. Mr. Lapid’s own bloc includes parties that also oppose a Palestinian state, while the Palestinian leadership is also divided and badly placed to resume peace talks.The effect of a victory for Mr. Netanyahu “cannot be minimized,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, a Jerusalem-based research group.“If the exit polls hold true,” he said, “Israel is headed toward a governing coalition that could seek to fundamentally alter its current democratic order and weaken the country’s delicate system of checks and balances.”Reporting was contributed by Myra Noveck from Jerusalem; Irit Pazner Garshowitz from Tzur Hadassah, Israel; Gabby Sobelman from Rehovot, Israel; and Hiba Yazbek from Nazareth, Israel. More