Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Unapologetic Black Power in the South

      by

      I’m a strong advocate of Black reverse migration — Black people returning to Southern states from cities in the North and West in order to concentrate political power.This reverse migration was already happening before my advocacy, and it continues. As the demographer William H. Frey wrote for the Brookings Institution in September, the reversal “began as a trickle in the 1970s, increased in the 1990s, and turned into a virtual evacuation from many Northern areas in subsequent decades.”There are many reasons for this reversal, primarily economic, but I specifically propose adding the accrual of political power — statewide political power — to the mix.One of the ways that people often push back on what I’m proposing is to worry aloud about the opposition and backlash to a rising Black population and power base in Southern states.Well, Georgia is providing a proving ground for this debate in real life.I heard so many people after the Georgia runoff in which Raphael Warnock defeated Herschel Walker who said some version of “Yes, but it was still too close.”It seemed to me that those comments — and many others — missed the bigger point: Something absolutely historic is happening in Georgia that portends a massive political realignment for several Southern states.Georgia voters proved this year that the historic election of a Black senator from a Southern state by a coalition led in many ways by Black people was not a fluke.And that coalition sent Warnock back to the Senate in the face of fierce opposition. Not only did the Georgia state legislature and Gov. Brian Kemp do their best to suppress voters — a tactic almost always designed to marginalize nonwhite voters — but Republicans also turned out in droves to try to retain power that they see slipping from their grasp.Furthermore, in the general election, Black turnout was down. According to Nate Cohn, the Black share of the electorate fell to its lowest level since 2006.But then in the runoff, when the choice was narrowed and sharpened, the Warnock coalition bounced back, stronger and defiant.According to the Georgia secretary of state’s office, Black voters only account for 29 percent of registered active voters in the state. During early voting, Black voters outperformed. They went to the polls to prove a point. They voted to flex. According to a Pew Research Center report, the number of Black people registered to vote in Georgia increased 25 percent from 2016 to 2020, a far larger increase than any other racial group.Yes, many, like me, were offended by the presence of Walker as the alternative, and were voting as much to defy Walker as to affirm Warnock.But even there, I think we have to step back, take a breath, and soberly assess how historic his presence was. The power structure in Georgia was so shocked by what this Black-led coalition had done that they allowed Donald Trump to foist a thoroughly unqualified Black Republican on them, thinking that he would help them win back power.Georgia Republicans thought they could fracture the Black vote. They couldn’t. It held strong and united.There is a great, nearly inexpressible exhilaration in this realization as a Black citizen and voter. Black people and other minorities weren’t simply being called upon to tip the balance when white voters split down the middle. Every other Black senator in American history has been elected by a coalition led by white liberals. Warnock is the first elected by a coalition led by Black people.Black people were leading the charge in his election, and he was solid, bright and competent. This startling new reality of electoral politics demolished any lingering lies about inferior Black leadership or intemperate Black voters. Black voters want what any other voter should want: solid leaders who are responsive to them.Some may look at the defeat of Stacey Abrams in the governor’s race and see it as a sign of caution, that the “Old South” is alive and well. But I see it differently. Power will not be passively relinquished. Those with it will fight like hell to retain it. And in that power struggle, they will win some of the battles.Each election will depend on candidates and campaigns. The race between Kemp and Abrams is not a predictor of what is possible. Black voters in Georgia keep reminding themselves what’s possible when they focus their attention and effort as they did in this runoff.That kind of engagement — and the reward of winning — is psychologically powerful. Once a people taste power, state power, it seems to me that it will be hard to turn away from it. Having it begins to feel normal and expected.That is a reality that many in this country have feared for centuries. That is a reality that I now relish.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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Brittney Griner Swap Puts Spotlight on Americans in Russia

      by

      Westerners in Russia have to weigh the risks of living and working in the country against professional and financial opportunities there.MOSCOW — After almost 10 months of war, sanctions, nuclear threats and the constant monitoring of the Russian security state, some American and European citizens continue to live and work in Russia, drawn in many cases by professional opportunities and higher salaries.Some Western athletes, businesspeople and artists chose to stay even as the Russian authorities arrested and jailed the American basketball player Brittney Griner in February on a minor drug charge. On Thursday, she was freed and sent back to the United States in a prisoner exchange for a notorious Russian arms dealer, Viktor Bout, in a move that some Republican politicians and analysts have said puts other Americans at risk of being wrongfully detained for political gain.Ms. Griner’s detention has injected a complex new factor into the calculation of whether to travel to, or work in, Russia, an already fraught decision with the war in Ukraine as a backdrop.More than 1,000 multinational companies have curtailed their operations in Russia since the invasion, with foreign managers often being the first to go. Most Western universities have halted student exchange programs with Russian peers. And most major European and American cultural institutions have ended collaborations with Russian theaters and museums, including the Bolshoi in Moscow and the Mariinsky in St. Petersburg, two of the world’s most storied houses for opera and ballet.But in other areas the numbers of Westerners have held steady or even grown since Ms. Griner’s arrest. Most choose to come or stay to advance careers, but there are also examples of Americans who made Russia their home for political reasons. Most famously, they include the actor Steven Seagal and the former intelligence analyst Edward Snowden, who just this month took an oath of Russian citizenship.The actor Steven Seagal watching a military parade in the Red Square in Moscow, in 2015.Sergei Ilnitsky/European Pressphoto AgencyAthletes have long provided one of the biggest streams of prominent Westerners to Russia. Players “whose careers were declining went there to maintain the same level of income that they were accustomed to,” said Bill Neff, an agent with clients across the world.After the outbreak of the war, the Russian teams in the Continental Hockey League, which includes Russia and its neighbors, lost nearly half of its foreign players. Finns and Swedes led the exodus, largely abiding by their countries’ hard-line stance toward Russia’s aggression.But after the initial outflow, some of the European vacancies are being filled by American and Canadian players. They include Scott Wilson, a Canadian who won N.H.L. championships with the Pittsburgh Penguins, and an American, Alexander Chmelevski, both of whom joined Russian teams this fall.There are now an estimated 42 Americans playing or planning to play in Russia’s premier men’s basketball league, up from 30 a few months ago, according to tallies by American sports agents. An analysis of team rosters shows that there are an additional 29 American and Canadian hockey players who are signed to premier Russian teams this season, with some joining after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There is even an American playing for the Russian woman’s basketball team that Ms. Griner represented before her arrest.The Release of Brittney GrinerThe American basketball star had been detained in Russia since February on charges of smuggling hashish oil into the country.Anxiety Turns to Relief: Brittney Griner’s supporters watched with dismay as her situation appeared to worsen over the summer. Now they are celebrating her release.The Russian Playbook: By detaining Ms. Griner, the Kremlin weaponized pain to get the United States to turn over a convicted arms dealer. Can the same tactic work in the war in Ukraine?A Test for Women’s Sports: The release was a victory for W.N.B.A. players and fans, who pushed furiously for it. But the athlete’s plight also highlighted gender inequities in sports.These athletes have stayed despite warnings from the State Department, which is advising all Americans to leave Russia immediately, weighing the risks of playing in Russia against professional and financial opportunities in a major sports market.Alexander Chmelevski playing for the San Jose Sharks last year.Jae C. Hong/Associated PressMany agents representing American athletes did not respond to queries about Ms. Griner’s detention in Russia. Those who did said the prisoner swap that brought her home had no effect on their work or their clients.“Griner’s case has to do with things that have nothing to do with basketball,” said David Carro, a Spanish sports agent representing four male American basketball players in Russia. “We never had any problems when Brittney Griner was there, and now, even less so.”“Our Americans get paid promptly and are living very well in Russia,” he added.Many American basketball players come to Russia to make money in the off-season or to prolong their careers. Because Russia covets top-level “name’’ players, they often pay high salaries. Athletes can take in more than $1 million and often receive free housing and cars.Mr. Neff, who represents about 30 professional basketball players, said Ms. Griner’s freedom did not lessen his caution in sending players to Russia during the conflict with Ukraine. He has discouraged his clients from going there and does not currently have any players in Russia.“I don’t think it changes anything,” Mr. Neff said of her release. “If you send someone to Russia, you know there are risks. Is the increased money worth the risk? That’s the choice you’re making.”The American basketball player K.C. Rivers, 35, came to Russia in August, while Ms. Griner was on trial, to play for the team of Samara, a provincial capital more than 500 miles east of Moscow.“At this point I didn’t really have so many options coming my way,” Mr. Rivers said in an interview in September. “What’s the best thing for me right now, towards — I ain’t going to say the end of my career — but in my career at this point? Financially, what makes sense?”K.C. Rivers playing for Zenit St. Petersburg during a Euroleague basketball game in Athens last year.John Andreou/EPA, via ShutterstockThe Russian basketball clubs are playing fewer games this season because of their suspension from Euroleague competition, a penalty that has diminished the quality of players the league has attracted, Mr. Neff said. And Russia’s hockey league voted this month to slash the number of foreigners that will be allowed on each team starting next season, an example of wartime nationalism sweeping the country.There are still a few Americans imprisoned in Russia. One is Paul Whelan, who was detained in December 2018, convicted of espionage and sentenced to 16 years in a penal colony; the U.S. State Department says he has been wrongfully detained. Marc Fogel, a 60-year-old history teacher, was detained in 2021 for having about half an ounce of medical marijuana. He was sentenced in June to 14 years in a penal colony.During a visit to Kyrgyzstan on Friday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia commented on the possibility of new prisoner exchanges with the United States.“Everything is possible and contacts continue through the special services,” he said at a news conference.George Beebe, a former director of the C.I.A.’s Russia analysis and a Russia adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, said that while there were risks for Americans in Russia, he did not think the Bout-Griner swap had increased the chances of an American’s being arrested on trumped-up pretexts.Paul Whelan, an American imprisoned in Russia, in a Moscow courtroom in 2020.Maxim Shemetov/Reuters“For American citizens that are living and working in Russia, I wouldn’t say that there is no danger,” Mr. Beebe, the program director at the Quincy Institute think tank, said in a telephone interview. “Certainly there is. The Russian government is not likely to be at all lenient in dealing with Americans. They’re not going to give any Americans the benefit of the doubt.”However, he said, “I don’t think it increases the likelihood that the Russian government is going to arrest Americans.”Andrei A. Soldatov, a Russian journalist who specializes in the security services, said it was hard to make predictions when the rules of the game are constantly changing. During the Cold War era, he said, the rules were defined and predictable. But with the war in Ukraine continuing to escalate, diplomacy is entering uncharted territory.“We all have this temptation always to compare this to the Cold War, but this is nothing like that,” he said in a telephone interview.“The Cold War was a period when nobody wanted or was actually interested in a hot war. And now we have a really big war which might get bigger,” he said. “Nobody can actually rationalize or predict and develop a strategy accordingly — that’s a problem.”Valerie Hopkins More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      What Are the Politics of Elon Musk? It’s Complicated.

      by

      Elon Musk has tweeted about political topics regularly since taking over Twitter, often belittling some liberal causes. But what he stands for remains largely unclear.He has called himself an independent and a centrist, yet “economically right of center, maybe.” He has said he was until recently a supporter of only Democrats and voted for President Biden. He’s encouraged people to vote Republican, which he said he did for the first time this year. Last year, he once even declared himself indifferent about politics, saying he’d rather stay out of it altogether.Elon Musk, ever a bundle of contradictions and inconsistencies, has long made his politics tricky to pin down. To many of his critics, though, his relentless flurry of tweets in the six weeks since he took over Twitter has exposed his true conservative bent, and intensified their fears that he would make the social network more susceptible to right-wing misinformation.And at times, he’s made it hard to argue with that. He has said he’d welcome former President Donald J. Trump back on Twitter; suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband was lying about the attack at their home that left him hospitalized; and reinstated accounts that have trafficked in offensive ethnic stereotypes and bigotry, including for the artist formerly known as Kanye West. (Mr. Musk later suspended Mr. West’s account again after the rapper-entrepreneur posted an image of a swastika.)His copious tweeting has generated huge amounts of attention. In a 24-hour period late this week, he tweeted more than 40 times, often with little rhyme or reason. He criticized the Biden administration’s deal with Russia that freed Brittney Griner, the Women’s National Basketball Association star. He asked Elton John to clarify his complaint about misinformation flourishing unchecked on Twitter. At times, Mr. Musk was acting like Twitter’s in-house customer service representative, boasting about new features and improved functions.And maybe that is a big part of the point — improving the image of his new $44 billion property, which he has said repeatedly is in dire financial straits.Yet Mr. Musk, who did not respond to a request for comment, continues to defy easy political categorization. His views have been described as libertarian, though these days his politics seem more contrarian than anything else. He is more clear about what he is against than what he is for.It’s true Mr. Musk certainly sounds a lot like a Republican — and, sometimes, a lot like Mr. Trump — with his missives on Twitter against “woke” politics and Covid restrictions, his attacks on “elite” media and his efforts to draw attention to allegations that Hunter Biden profited from his father’s political clout.More on Elon Musk’s Twitter TakeoverAn Established Pattern: Firing people. Talking of bankruptcy. Telling workers to be “hard core.” Twitter isn’t the first company that witnessed Elon Musk use those tactics.Rivals Emerge: Sensing an opportunity, new start-ups and other social platforms are racing to dethrone Twitter and capitalize on the chaos of its new ownership under Mr. Musk.The ‘Twitter Files’: Mr. Musk and Matt Taibbi, an independent journalist, set off an intense debate with a release of internal Twitter documents regarding a 2020 decision to restrict posts linking to a report in the New York Post about Hunter Biden.Hard Fork: The Times podcast looks at Mr. Musk’s two-day clash with Apple, which he had accused of trying to sabotage Twitter before saying the “misunderstanding” had been resolved.But where Mr. Musk has seemed most in line with the G.O.P. of Mr. Trump is in the tenor of his political commentary, which if anything seems more spiritedly anti-left than ideologically pro-right. While he has not been shy about sharing his disdain for many Democrats, his enthusiasm for Republicans has been more muted. He has stressed repeatedly that his problems are with extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.“To be clear, my historical party affiliation has been Independent, with an actual voting history of entirely Democrat until this year,” he wrote on Twitter the day before the midterm election. “And I’m open to the idea of voting Democrat again in the future.”As with many people who describe themselves as politically independent now, the hostility Mr. Musk harbors toward Democrats appears to have drawn him closer to the Republican Party over the last few years. He considers himself as part of the “center 80% of people, who wish to learn, laugh & engage in reasoned debate.”He has eagerly encouraged his followers to weigh in with their views on the country’s culture wars and traded tweets with some of the right’s favorite punching bags, like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. When she criticized his plan to charge Twitter users $8 a month to have a verified account with one of the social media service’s signature blue check marks — “Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that ‘free speech’ is actually a $8/mo subscription plan,” she wrote — he dismissed her.“Your feedback is appreciated, now pay $8,” Mr. Musk shot back.Many of his recent tweets have had that kind of “own the libs” tone, the shorthand on the right for when conservatives think they’ve deftly, often sarcastically, swatted down a liberal. A couple of weeks ago, he posted video on Twitter of a closet full of T-shirts with the slogan “#stay woke” that he said he had found at the social media company’s headquarters. Then he followed up with a tweet that linked to a Justice Department report that undercut one of the central narratives of the mass protests against police brutality: that Michael Brown, a Black teenager killed by the police in Ferguson, Mo., had his hands raised when a white officer shot him.On occasion, his remarks have raised concerns that he has planted himself firmly among right-wing conspiracy theorists. When he tweeted about the attack on Ms. Pelosi’s husband, he shared the unfounded claim that there was “a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye.” He later deleted the tweet, which linked to an article from a fringe website.He also said he would support Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida for president in 2024, though his endorsement was not especially resounding. He merely replied “Yes” when someone on Twitter asked him. Mr. DeSantis, a hard-line conservative, would be an odd choice for someone who professes to want centrist governance in Washington.Mr. Musk has always claimed his concerns with Twitter’s previous management were about the ability of a small group of the company’s employees whom he described as “far left” to censor content. And over the past week, he has cheered on tweets about internal communications before he took over. The communications, which were given to two writers who have posted their findings on Twitter, calling them the Twitter Files, showed how the company went about deciding what information got suppressed.It’s been a mixed bag of revelations. Some showed how Twitter employees made it harder to see tweets from a Stanford University professor who warned about how Covid lockdowns could harm children — a view many public health experts have come around to accept well after the fact. Other documents show how more conventional, conspiracy-theory-embracing conservatives were shut down, like Dan Bongino, the radio host who was one of the biggest amplifiers of lies about the 2020 election.Mr. Musk has not professed to have any profound attachment to Republican policies, though, which is consistent with his posture before taking over Twitter.He has been highly critical of climate change deniers and said he’s proud of how Tesla forced the rest of the automobile industry to embrace electric vehicles. In 2020, he revealed that he’d spoken to Mr. Trump numerous times about the importance of developing sustainable energy, which the former president dismissed in favor of traditional fossil fuel-based sources. And Mr. Musk quit Mr. Trump’s business councils after the administration pulled out of the Paris climate accord.In an interview with The New York Times in 2020, he described his politics as “middle-of-the-road.” “I’m socially very liberal. And then economically right of center, maybe, or center. I don’t know. I’m obviously not a communist.”His political giving supports that claim. According to the Federal Election Commission, which reports spending in federal but not state races, he has donated just shy of $1 million since 2003 to candidates as conservative as former President George W. Bush and as liberal as Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. More recently, in 2020, he donated to senators of both political parties — including Chris Coons and Gary Peters, both Democrats, and Susan Collins and John Cornyn, both Republicans.Often, it seems, his posts are motivated by personal pique, not political philosophy. He’s criticized the Biden administration, for instance, as “not the friendliest” and for excluding Tesla, the world’s largest electric vehicle maker, from a White House summit on zero-emission vehicles in August 2021. His speculation on the reason for the exclusion: General Motors and the other car companies invited are union companies; Tesla is not. “Seems to be controlled by unions,” he complained at the time.Many of the views he has espoused on Twitter over the last two years have become popular in today’s Republican Party but are hardly exclusive to card-carrying Republicans. His criticism of progressives he views as overly censorious and sanctimonious is a sentiment many on the left have expressed. And his public condemnation of strict Covid containment measures in 2020 channeled what would become a growing skepticism of widespread public health restrictions. Though he was more exercised about them than most. “Fascist,” he once declared.Often, his tweets can seem to imply he leans in one direction when it’s just as likely that he is trying to court controversy. How to interpret, for instance, a post last week of what he said was an image of his bedside table? It had a revolver on it and a musket in a wooden case decorated with an image of George Washington crossing the Delaware River during the Revolutionary War.“Greetings, I’m Musket, Elon Musket,” he wrote.A few days later, he sounded pleased with himself as he remarked on the way Twitter had changed since his purchase was completed in October. “So many interesting posts on Twitter these days!” More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Sununu on Trump: ‘He’s Not Scaring Anyone Out of the Race’

      by

      In a wide-ranging interview, Chris Sununu, the New Hampshire governor, called the Republican presidential primary a tossup. As for Trump? “He’s not clearing the field.”Confident and even brash, Chris Sununu is one of the most popular governors in America. In a year when many Republicans struggled, he was re-elected in New Hampshire by more than 15 percentage points. The way to win, he says, is not “ranting and raving” about cultural topics but the old-fashioned way: listening carefully to voters and talking about solutions to their most pressing problems.Sununu thinks Republicans need to relearn the “basic tenets of politics.” He’s no fan of Donald Trump, and he thinks the former president will be eminently beatable in the Republican primary. He also says it’s “insulting” of Democrats to demand that New Hampshire give up its traditional place in the presidential calendar to suit the “personal whims” of President Biden, who he predicts will eventually be pushed aside by Democratic power brokers in Washington or bow out on his own.The New Hampshire governor, who is often discussed as a possible presidential contender in 2024, had a lot to say over the course of a 40-minute interview. Here’s a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:Let’s talk about what happened in the midterm elections. A lot of people are blaming Donald Trump for choosing candidates in primaries who struggled in November. Is it that simple?No, no, no, no. Look, there’s a lot of different pieces here. It’s not just about former President Trump. It’s about the candidates themselves. They were bad candidates because they had a bad message, right? Often they made Trump a part of their message. And that just isn’t what voters wanted.A lot of candidates forgot the most basic tenets of politics: I need more votes than the other side. And it isn’t just about catering to a base or firing up your base. You need to listen to independents. You need to listen to all of the voting constituencies to see what the issues are for voters.There was also a little bit of manipulation of the primary process by Democrats. We saw it right here in New Hampshire with our U.S. Senate race. You effectively had the opposing party trying to pick your party’s candidate. Democrats were good at defining our candidates for us.Some Republicans say that candidates were too focused on hot-button cultural topics like transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, or books in school libraries. Do you agree with that critique?Yes. I agree that candidates focused on the wrong issues. I don’t mind addressing cultural issues; of course we need to. But it’s how you as a candidate stand up for it — not just ranting and raving, but hopefully inspiring folks to really believe in you as the person who can be a positive agent of change for those issues.Democrats talk about how abortion was a really powerful issue for them. You supported a 24-week ban, right?Yeah, I signed that. The Legislature put it in the budget. I’m pro-choice, but it’s a provision that I think most Americans would support. It’s very late — the third trimester.The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Bangladesh Arrests Opposition Leaders as Crackdown Intensifies

      by

      Tensions boiled over this week as opposition supporters descended on the capital ahead of a major demonstration against the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.DHAKA, Bangladesh — The authorities in Bangladesh arrested two senior opposition leaders early on Friday, capping off a week of political tensions, including a major clash between the police and opposition supporters that left at least one demonstrator dead, dozens wounded and hundreds arrested.Human rights groups say Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has intensified a crackdown against her opponents as the South Asian nation with a population of 165 million prepares for general elections next year. She has been in power for more than a decade, a tenure marked by authoritarian control and impressive economic growth that appears to be waning in the wake of the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Mirza Abbas, senior members of the opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, were arrested by plainclothes security personnel in a predawn raid, the wives of both men said. With Khaleda Zia, the former prime minister and leader of the B.N.P. under house arrest and barred from politics, Mr. Alamgir, the general secretary, has been the de facto leader of the opposition since Ms. Zia’s arrest in 2018.“Four men came to the apartment we live in and said they are taking him with them,” said Rahat Ara Begum, Mr. Alamgir’s wife. “When they were asked why they were doing it, they said they were ordered to detain him by the higher authority. But they did not say who the higher authority was.”The police in Dhaka, the capital, said they had taken both leaders in for questioning regarding clashes earlier in the week outside the B.N.P.’s main headquarters. Faruk Hossain, the deputy commissioner of Dhaka Metropolitan Police, said 47 police officers were wounded in those clashes when they tried to disperse a large crowd of supporters gathered outside the headquarters ahead of a rally planned by the party for Saturday.“They led their supporters, instigated them to fight against the police,” Mr. Hossain said of the arrests.The B.N.P., in return, has accused the police of “organized violence” to sabotage their rally, which they say will be a culmination of several large rallies they have held in recent weeks and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of supporters.Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina speaking at the United Nations Headquarters in New York in September. Ms. Hasina’s government has taken a hard line against critics, arresting journalists, activists and opposition leaders.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesMs. Hasina, the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding leader after the country split from Pakistan in the 1970s, has continued Bangladesh’s long history of often brutal winner-takes-all politics, deploying the laws and law-enforcement against opponents and activists. Under her rule, Bangladesh’s special forces, the Rapid Action Battalion, have been accused of turning into a death squad. While the force’s reputation for brutality precedes Ms. Hasina taking office in 2009, it was sanctioned by the United States government during her watch, with some of its current and former leaders being accused of hundreds of extrajudicial killings.In recent years, Ms. Hasina’s government has employed a digital security law to arrest journalists, activists and opposition members, some for minor offenses such as making critical comments about her handling of Covid on Facebook. In the past two years, more than 2,000 people have been detained under the law, which the United Nations says “imposes draconian punishments for a wide range of vaguely defined acts.”As she targeted her critics, Ms. Hasina tried to emphasize her country’s economic success, with Bangladesh touted by the World Bank as an “inspiring story of growth” for managing to slash poverty and grow its G.D.P. per capita larger than neighboring India’s.But just as the economy was beginning to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, the blowback of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine kicked in. Rising prices around the world have reduced the demand for exports, while the increase in food and oil prices have hurt citizens at home. The reduction in exports has resulted in a fall in foreign reserves, forcing Bangladesh to reach out to the International Monetary Fund for $4.5 billion in assistance.Since July, the opposition has tried to mobilize around the economic stress, organizing nearly a dozen large rallies in different parts of the country. Maruf Mallick, a lecturer and analyst of Bangladesh politics based in Germany, said the economic stress and the fact that the opposition has been able to rally large numbers of people despite government resistance has Ms. Hasina and her officials worried.“The government feels that if this situation continues, they may be in danger,” Mr. Mallick said. “And to cover this weak situation they are trying to attack political opponents.”As clashes intensify, human rights groups say Ms. Hasina’s government has responded in a one-sided manner, protecting her supporters while implicating the opposition in myriad cases where the police lists hundreds of “unidentified” people as suspects — a tactic that, rights activists say, is then used as a free hand in targeting political opponents.“Law enforcement officers have used these open cases as warrants to raid the homes of political opposition members in what appears to be overt political harassment and intimidation,” Human Rights Watch said.A street food vendor in Dhaka, Bangladesh’s capital. Rising food prices have taken a heavy toll on citizens of the South Asian country after the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Monirul Alam/EPA, via ShutterstockThe recent tensions came to a boil on Wednesday, when thousands of B.N.P. supporters gathered outside the party’s main office in Dhaka as the government and the party remained locked in disagreement over the venue for Saturday’s rally. In the afternoon, heavily armed police officers raided the area, saying B.N.P. supporters were causing public disruption and hindering traffic.The police accused the supporters of “vandalism and obstruction of police work” and carrying Molotov cocktails, rounding up about 300 of them and calling them “terrorists.”“We gathered there like we generally do. The police suddenly came and started to beat our supporters. They exploded sound grenades, they used guns. They barred me from entering the party office and arrested our people,” Mr. Alamgir, the B.N.P.’s de facto leader told local news media before his arrest. “No doubt they are plotting something against us. I don’t know what they are doing inside our office.”Over the past week, 15 foreign embassies in Dhaka put out a joint statement emphasizing the right to peaceful protest.“As Bangladesh is coming closer to its national election next year, we remind Bangladesh of its commitments, as a U.N. member state, to free expression, media freedom, and peaceful assembly among others written in the Declaration,” said Gwyn Lewis, the U.N. resident coordinator in Bangladesh.After the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesch, Peter D. Haas, urged an investigation into the political violence this week and called for the protection of “the fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly,” a senior aide to Ms. Hasnia fired back, pointing at election disputes and gun violence in the United States.“Sheikh Hasina will not bow down to anyone’s order or interference,” Obaidul Quader, a cabinet minister and the ruling party’s general secretary, told a meeting of party leaders. “She does not fear anyone except Allah.”Saif Hasnat More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      This Case Should Never Have Made It to the Supreme Court

      by

      “The most important case for American democracy” in the nation’s history — that’s how the former appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig described Moore v. Harper, an extraordinary lawsuit that the Supreme Court considered in oral arguments Wednesday morning. Judge Luttig, a conservative and a widely respected legal thinker, is not one for overstatement. Yet most Americans aren’t paying attention to the case because it involves some confusing terminology and an arcane legal theory. It is essential that people understand just how dangerous this case is to the fundamental structure of American government, and that enough justices see the legal fallacies and protect our democracy.First, the back story on the case: In 2021, North Carolina lawmakers redrew their congressional maps. The state had 13 districts at the time, and its voters were more or less evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. But the Republicans who are in control of North Carolina’s legislature didn’t want fair maps; they wanted power. In one of the most egregious gerrymanders in the nation, they drew 10 seats intended to favor themselves.The North Carolina courts were not amused. A panel of three trial judges found that the 2021 maps were “intentionally and carefully designed to maximize Republican advantage” — so much so that Republicans could win legislative majorities even when Democrats won more votes statewide. The State Supreme Court struck down the maps, finding they violated the North Carolina Constitution’s guarantees of free elections, free speech, free assembly and equal protection.That should have been the end of it: A state court applying the state Constitution to strike down a state law. But North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers appealed, arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not give state courts authority to rule on their congressional maps — even though the legislature had passed a law authorizing the courts to review redistricting plans like these. Instead, the lawmakers are relying on an untested theory that asserts that state legislatures enjoy nearly unlimited power to set and change rules for federal elections.In 2000 the chief justice at the time, William H. Rehnquist, proposed the idea in his concurring opinion on Bush v. Gore, and the independent state legislature theory has been floating around the fringes of right-wing legal circles ever since.To be clear, this is a political power grab in the guise of a legal theory. Republicans are trying to see if they can turn state legislatures — 30 of which are controlled by Republicans — into omnipotent, unaccountable election bosses with the help of the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. The theory has no basis in law, history or precedent. The idea that state lawmakers exist free of any constraints imposed by their constitution and state courts makes a mockery of the separation of powers, which is foundational to the American system of government. By the North Carolina lawmakers’ logic, they possess infinite power to gerrymander districts and otherwise control federal elections. It is a Constitution-free zone where no one else in the state — not the governor, not the courts, not the voters through ballot initiatives — has any say.On Wednesday morning, Justice Elena Kagan rejected the theory out of hand, saying it “gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country. And you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the time when they are needed most.”In practice, the theory that the petitioners in the case are seeking to use would turn hundreds of state constitutional provisions into dead letters in federal elections. For instance, 48 states affirmatively guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions. (The federal Constitution still does not.) Most state constitutions guarantee free, fair, equal or open elections. Even the secret ballot — so fundamental to American democracy — is a creature of state constitutions. If the justices accept the most aggressive version of the independent state legislature theory that the petitioners want them to and even if they accept a weaker version, provisions like these could become invalid overnight, because the theory holds that state constitutions have no authority to impose any regulations on federal elections. (The Constitution and federal law remain supreme, so challenges to state legislative actions could still be brought in federal courts.)Some of the justices insist that they don’t — they can’t — pay attention to the real-world outcomes of their rulings. They’re just interpreting law. By that logic, this case should be rejected on its merits.First, the theory is based on bad legal interpretation. The Constitution uses the word “legislature” in describing who has the power to regulate federal elections. Because of this word, the theory’s supporters claim, state legislatures have nearly unlimited power in that realm. But as Judge Luttig has noted, the theory has “literally no support” in the Constitution. To the contrary, the framers who wrote the Constitution were concerned that state legislatures had too much power, not too little. The text they wrote makes many references to the powers of those legislatures and of Congress, but it never says or implies that they are immune to review by the judicial branch.Second, the theory is based on bad history. The best evidence its supporters offer is a two-century-old document that has long been known to be fraudulent. Written in 1818 by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, a founding father, it is purported to be a replica of the plan for government that he introduced three decades earlier at the Constitutional Convention. But what he submitted in 1818 was not the real deal. James Madison suspected this immediately, as have virtually all historians to examine it in the years since.When the theory’s supporters sought to claim that the practices of early state legislatures proved that their side should win, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded, “Yes. If you rewrite history, it’s very easy to do.”Third, if the Supreme Court accepts this theory, it will create a logistical nightmare in states across the country. That’s because the theory applies only to federal elections, not state elections, in which state courts unquestionably have a role to play. As a result, there would be two sets of rules operating at the same time, one for federal elections and one for state elections. Chaos and confusion would reign.Most important, the Supreme Court has already implicitly rejected the theory many times over. In precedents stretching back decades, the court has made clear that state courts have the power to set limits on what lawmakers can do when it comes to federal elections. As recently as 2019, the court rejected a plea for it to stop the extreme partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and other states. In doing so, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that this is exactly the role that state courts should play. “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply,” he wrote.At Wednesday’s argument, Justice Samuel Alito appeared to reject that premise. He accused elected state court judges, like those in North Carolina, of being political actors themselves. “There’s been a lot of talk about the impact of this decision on democracy,” said Justice Alito, who has given openly partisan speeches to outside groups and voted consistently in alignment with Republican policy priorities. “Do you think that it furthers democracy to transfer the political controversy about districting from the legislature to elected supreme courts where the candidates are permitted by state law to campaign on the issue of districting?”Another way to appreciate the absurdity of the theory is to consider who has come out for and against it. On one side, a large and bipartisan group of judges, government officials, former lawmakers, leading historians and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum have rejected it. These include a co-founder of the right-wing legal group the Federalist Society, the chief justices of all 50 states, multiple Republican former governors and secretaries of state and civil rights organizations.On the other side, you will find a far smaller and less bipartisan cast of characters — among them, the Republican National Committee, a group of Republican state attorneys general and John Eastman, a former law professor last seen helping Donald Trump plan an illegal and unconstitutional coup to stay in office (an act that has exposed Mr. Eastman to a real risk of criminal prosecution).That so many justices would take the theory seriously is bad enough. Three of them — Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — appear to favor the independent state legislature theory, as they suggested in an opinion in an earlier stage of the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also indicated his openness to it. It’s worse when the public trust in and approval of the court have fallen to historic lows, thanks largely to aggressively partisan recent opinions, as this board has argued.There’s an old saying that only close cases make it to the Supreme Court. If they weren’t close, they would have been resolved in the lower courts. But Moore v. Harper isn’t a remotely close case. A ruling for the North Carolina lawmakers would flood the federal courts with election litigation that normally plays out in the states, upending the balance of federalism that defines American government. That’s not a conservative result; it’s a dangerously radical one.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Is Weak. And Powerful. Now What?

      by

      Everyone knows by now how many Trump candidates lost this year, especially the higher-profile, more hard-core ones who claimed the 2020 election was stolen. Kari Lake lost in Arizona. Doug Mastriano lost in Pennsylvania. Most of the notable pro-Trump secretary of state candidates lost. The Senate candidates, too. The Democrats even added on in Georgia on Tuesday, with the same, central animating force behind each development: that Donald Trump forced his party to run a candidate, Herschel Walker, who lost, weakening Mr. Trump and the party — a mutual descent.What everyone does not know by now is what to do with Mr. Trump’s third candidacy for president. What is this campaign? He’s a candidate without opponents, who has made less frequent public appearances since his announcement than he did before, whose party’s other notable members seem to want to move on but often still don’t really say so publicly. The 2022 incarnation of Mr. Trump is like some kind of trap: He keeps losing and forcing others to go with him, in part because of his and their nature and in part because without him, Republicans might not quite be able to win, either.Looming over every aspect of Mr. Trump’s current campaign is the simple question: Will this be like before? That has a technical, outcome-driven dimension (will he win and become president?) and a more cultural, psychological one (will he dominate American life, and will each day’s news turn on the actions and emotions of one person cascading through society?). Politics is about a lot more than just the outcomes of elections; a long time separates us from the 2024 election, and each day has the potential to influence the ones after. Something can be weak and a considerable force in politics or culture at the same time; someone can be losing and influential at the same time. These things are compatible.The country spent nearly two years hearing about voting machine conspiracies and the possibility of subversion in future elections. Voters rejected all that in many cases. What did the last two years mean for Mr. Trump and these candidates? For all of us? Nobody got anything of real value out of conspiracy theories and Trump recriminations. Not the Republicans, certainly, and that’s been the tenor of much post-election coverage and conversation — the way Mr. Trump’s choices produced certain outcomes that hurt the Republican Party.“The people that were on the crazy side, they’ve kind of been sent off to the frontier,” Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, told Semafor this week. “If you’re denying the last election or any election, I think that balloon has been popped.” Even so, it’s no great gift to the country as a whole that candidates ran for two years on suspicion about normal election practices or advancing conspiracy theories, which people heard and internalized — a more intangible result with effects harder to measure.Since Mr. Trump’s announcement for president, as you have also heard by now, he’s repeatedly demanded that the 2020 election be redone, even straight up saying that there could be a “termination” of the Constitution. Two nights before Thanksgiving, he ate dinner with a white supremacist and Kanye West, who can’t stop saying antisemitic things. These events can also be viewed through this dual dynamic of weakness and influence. In the most basic horse race political sense, Mr. Trump’s actions almost certainly hurt him; more Republicans have criticized him, and we have multiple election cycles of results suggesting that people reject his choices. This weakens him. But he still has influence, and through this one dinner, for instance, many, many people heard about an extreme racist they probably never heard about before.In 2022, even when Mr. Trump seems to be fading politically, nobody has conclusively resolved the question of how to deal with him — when to step in and when to ignore, how to measure one action against another. The central issue flows from an understanding that most people in this country seem to share, however they feel about him: Mr. Trump will not be stopped from endlessly wanting things. And he will not confine himself to the ways in which a president or public person is supposed to behave, in pursuit of this endless array of wants and needs.Faced with this uncontrollability, people fall into complex emotional dynamics of how to react to Mr. Trump — to care or not care, how to demonstrate caring, to ignore him or this or that, to never ignore it, how far to go, when to walk away, when to stay, when someone else’s silence becomes unacceptable. How is a person supposed to be? What can a single person do? What are our duties and obligations? These questions animate centuries of literature and philosophy, but Mr. Trump’s chemical mix of emotion and power turns them into an hourly concern. He will not change; you can. This is an exhausting texture of American life in this era, even now.It’s almost hard to remember what the first campaign was like, though it, too, started with a weak hand. Mr. Trump defeated a splintered field with, initially, mere pluralities of votes. And you were constantly finding out how weak American institutions were: the thinness of political belief among Republican politicians, the inability of different institutions to do anything about Mr. Trump’s candidacy, the true incentives of cable news, how game people were to go along with, for instance, an attack on Mexicans or Gold Star parents. Practically overnight, Republican and conservative groups went from opposing Mr. Trump to caving in to the reality of his candidacy to emphatically supporting him. This general dynamic repeated again and again for years.Seven years in, one of the more disorienting aspects of the Trump era is the way there’s never any sense of resolution. The entire population hangs in a kind of eternal suspense, without past or future. Since the week of Jan. 6, 2021, without Mr. Trump’s ceaseless presence on the major social platforms, things have been somewhat different. But who knows where he goes from here? He might return to Twitter. He might really be fading. He might lose to Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor. He might not accept a loss to anyone, at any point. He might be president again. Could we really revert to the full chaotic, exhausting, late-2010s immersion in Mr. Trump’s emotions?The need to know how it ends with Mr. Trump, what will happen next and how people respond to him, can obscure the current situation. And over the past year, it’s become clearer how power and weakness and influence can exist in one space and in one person. In this dark environment, Mr. Trump can lose an election and still change American life indefinitely.Katherine Miller is a staff writer and editor in Opinion.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

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      After Georgia Senate Loss, Republicans Stare Down Their Trump Dilemma

      by

      ATLANTA — The Democrats’ capstone re-election victory of Senator Raphael Warnock forced Republicans to reckon on Wednesday with the red wave that wasn’t, as they turned with trepidation to 2024 and the intensifying divisions in the party over former President Donald J. Trump.Mr. Warnock’s two-and-a-half percentage point win over Herschel Walker in the Georgia Senate runoff left Democrats with a 51-49 seat majority in the upper chamber, a one-seat gain. That came despite dire predictions for a blood bath for President Biden’s party.It quickly had Republican fingers pointing every which way: at Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader accused by detractors of abandoning or belittling embattled Republican Senate candidates; at Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who many feel badly mismanaged the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm; and at Mr. Walker himself, for hiding and lying about his past, only to see the details stream out steadily over the course of his campaign.But for a handful of Republicans, newly emboldened by re-election or retirement to say so aloud, the biggest culprit was Mr. Trump. In increasingly biting terms, they slammed him for promoting flawed candidates, including Mr. Walker, dividing his party and turning many swing voters against the G.O.P. for the third election cycle in a row.“I think he’s less relevant all the time,” Senator John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, said of the former president, who has begun a third bid for the White House.“It’s just one more data point in an overwhelming body of data that the Trump obsession is very bad for Republicans,” said Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, a retiring Republican whose seat was flipped to Democrats by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman.Trump campaign aides responded with defiance, in a back-and-forth likely to be on repeat for the foreseeable future. Steven Cheung, a senior communications adviser for the former president, said they “are not going to be lectured by political swamp creatures who are already looking to find ways to make a quick buck in 2024 by running to the media and providing cowardly quotes.”The midterm losses like Mr. Walker’s not only squashed the G.O.P.’s high hopes of retaking control of the Senate but also signaled the party’s steep climb ahead. Voters in several presidential battleground states resoundingly rejected candidates aligned with the former president, handing Republicans losses in winnable races in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire and, finally, Georgia.Mr. Trump’s influence was indisputable in the suburbs, said Rusty Paul, the Republican mayor of Sandy Springs, a booming suburban city on Atlanta’s northern edge.Mr. Paul allowed that the once almost-wholly affluent, almost-wholly white community had become more diverse ethnically, racially and economically, tipping it in Democrats’ favor.Herschel Walker giving his concession speech on Tuesday night.Nicole Buchanan for The New York TimesA scorecard with election results left at Mr. Walker’s election night party.Nicole Buchanan for The New York Times“All of those are factors, but the greatest factor is Trumpism,” he said.“There’s a very strong conservative streak in the northern suburbs, Cobb, North Fulton — if Trump’s not engaged, they’ll still vote Republican,” he continued, speaking of the northern edge of Atlanta’s main county and Cobb County, just to the west. “But if they feel Trump’s influence, they’ll vote against him.”Trump loyalists in Georgia and beyond disputed that assessment. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who represented many of those suburbs for years as a House Republican, blamed a list of factors beside Mr. Trump, down to the mockery by “Saturday Night Live” of Mr. Walker three days before the runoff election. It’s the G.O.P. versus the media, Big Tech, Hollywood and the nation’s social power structures, he said.Understand the Georgia Senate RunoffNew Battlegrounds: Senator Raphael Warnock’s win shows how Georgia and Arizona are poised to be the next kingmakers of presidential politics, Lisa Lerer writes.A Rising Democratic Star: Mr. Warnock, a son of Savannah public housing who rose to become Georgia’s first Black senator, is a pastor and politician who sees voting as a form of prayer.Trump’s Bad Day: The loss by Herschel Walker, the Republican candidate, capped one of the worst days for former President Donald J. Trump since he announced his 2024 bid.“We underestimate how big the mountain is that we’re trying to climb,” he said.But Mr. Gingrich also raised the prospects of a disastrous 2024, as Trump’s supporters split acrimoniously with its anti-Trump wing of the party the way conservatives in 1964 backed Barry Goldwater and moderates sided with Nelson Rockefeller.“My greatest fear is that we’re going to end up in a 1964 division” that left Republicans crippled in Congress, he said in an interview Wednesday. “I can imagine a Trump-anti-Trump war over the next two years that just guarantees Biden’s re-election in a landslide and guarantees that Democrats control everything.”Senator Raphael Warnock visited students at Georgia Tech on Monday.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesMr. Warnock speaking to reporters on Tuesday in Norcross, Ga.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesEmerging from the midterms, the anti-Trump wing has plenty of ammunition to make its case for a break. Two of Mr. Trump’s most prominent Republican foils in Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, won re-election easily, in part because of their refusal to back the former president’s lie that the state had been stolen from him in 2020. Their resistance confirmed to Republican-leaning swing voters that they were not in Mr. Trump’s thrall.In contrast, Mr. Walker, who was urged to run by the former president and has already said he intends to vote for Mr. Trump for president, lost ground among almost every type of precinct in the four weeks between Election Day on Nov. 8 and runoff day on Tuesday, according to a New York Times analysis.The Republican fared worse in the runoff at precincts that initially backed Mr. Warnock and Mr. Kemp, at precincts dominated by college graduates, at urban and suburban precincts, affluent precincts and at Black precincts and Hispanic precincts. The only precincts where he held his own were in rural areas and areas with white, noncollege voters.Mr. Walker, a first-time candidate and former football star, had plenty of troubles that had nothing to do with Mr. Trump. His campaign was repeatedly hit with damaging revelations that might have knocked other candidates out of the race, including accusations of domestic violence, unacknowledged children and hypocrisy on abortion.And beyond Mr. Trump, there are other factors changing Georgia’s political hue: the in-migration of voters of color from around the country, the movement of politically active Black voters from central Atlanta to suburbs near and far, where they carried on their organizational activities, and the activation of white women like Jennifer Haggard, a real estate agent and lifelong Sandy Springer, who cast aside reflexive conservatism for a more open-minded politics.“I’m the white Republican who turned swing voter for sure,” Ms. Haggard said after voting for Mr. Warnock. She cited Mr. Trump as easily the biggest factor, but happily voted for Mr. Warnock.In the face of trends favoring Democrats, Georgia Republicans failed to nominate a Senate candidate who could galvanize both the party’s hyper-conservative base and its moderate factions — a group that many in the G.O.P. believe still makes up a majority of the state’s electorate.That failure extended beyond Georgia. Republican candidates in the primary season reached into Mr. Trump’s ideological milieu to capture his voters, moving so far that they could not credibly swing to win back the center in the general election.“Even if you capture all of the Trump voters, you may be able to win a primary but you’re not necessarily going to win a general election and in this business, you have to win an election before you can actually govern,” said Mr. Cornyn, who for years dodged questions about Mr. Trump. “It’s not like coming in second and getting a trophy like you did in junior high school for participation.”For many Trump-loyal voters, the question may come down to whether they are willing to make a cold-eyed assessment of electability or follow their hearts. The chorus of Republican voices arguing for electability is growing louder.“More strings of defeats delivered to us clearly by Donald Trump is enough for our party to realize we’ve got to move on if we want to win,” Paul D. Ryan, the former Republican Speaker of the House, said in a SiriusXM interview. “We should not just concede the country to the left by nominating an unelectable candidate like Donald Trump.”Even Mr. Walker’s team seemed to acknowledge Mr. Trump was a drag on the candidate in the final weeks of the race. As the former president teased a visit to Georgia, Trump aides worked with the Walker campaign to agree to scrap an in-person rally and instead hold the event via phone. Mr. Walker did not frequently mention Mr. Trump in his campaign speeches. And in his final concession speech, he did not say the former president’s name.Jack Kingston, a former House Republican from the Savannah area, argued that Mr. Trump’s influence was overblown. In 2021, as two Georgia Senate races headed to a runoff, Mr. Trump, then the president, was railing against a rigged election, signaling to Republicans that their vote wouldn’t count, he noted. This time around, he was far less present.“I would not say the invisible hand of Donald Trump was telling Herschel Walker what to do,” Mr. Kingston said on Wednesday. “He was his own man.”Stephanie Lai More