Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Bolsonaro Grabs for Man’s Phone and Gets a New (Insulting) Nickname

      by

      Six weeks ahead of national elections, the Brazilian president was confronted by a protester who tried to ask questions on video. He grabbed the man’s shirt, then tried to snatch his phone.ReutersRIO DE JANEIRO — A motorcade of black vehicles approached Brazil’s presidential palace on Thursday afternoon and then, surprisingly, stopped. To the delight of a crowd gathered under the afternoon sun, out of one of the cars stepped President Jair Bolsonaro.About two dozen selfie-seekers swarmed the president, who smiled and posed for photos. It was one of the impromptu meet-and-greets that Mr. Bolsonaro has become known for during his campaign for re-election.Then the cheerful vibe broke. One man in the crowd began shouting, demanding answers about one of Mr. Bolsonaro’s policies. Mr. Bolsonaro got back into his vehicle.“I’m here every day, Bolsonaro. I want to see you be brave enough to come talk to me,” shouted the protester, Wilker Leão, as he recorded himself on his phone. Repeatedly, he hurled an insult at the president that roughly translates to “the pork-barrelers’ little lap dog,” though a bit more vulgar.President Jair Bolsonaro at a campaign stop in São José dos Campos on Thursday.Carla Carniel/ReutersSuddenly the president exited the vehicle, grabbed Mr. Leão’s shirt and tried to snatch his phone. “Come here,” Mr. Bolsonaro said, gripping Mr. Leão’s arm as he tried to get away. “I want to talk to you.”It was a surprising scene, even by the standards of a president who has rewritten Brazil’s standards for how the leader of Latin America’s largest nation should act. (Think vulgar attacks on his rivals, a stream of false statements and a refusal to admit whether he has been vaccinated.) Video of the incident rocketed around the Brazilian internet — a president scuffling with a constituent just six weeks ahead of national elections.To the political left in Brazil, it was another example of why Mr. Bolsonaro is not fit to serve in the nation’s highest office. To the right, it was another example of how Mr. Bolsonaro is authentic and a man not afraid to take on his critics.What remains to be seen is the incident’s effect on the moderate voters who will effectively decide the election. Mr. Bolsonaro has consistently trailed former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in opinion surveys, though he has recently gained ground, buoyed by Brazil’s improving economy. If no one receives a majority of the votes in the Oct. 2 election, there will be a runoff on Oct. 30.Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the front-runner in the coming presidential election, campaigning in São Paulo on Saturday.Miguel Schincariol/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAfter Mr. Bolsonaro grabbed Mr. Leão, the president’s security team quickly pushed the man away, as seen in footage captured by a journalist for the Brazilian news organization G1, as well as by Mr. Leão’s own video. The president’s team then told people to stop filming. The G1 journalist continued to film. Mr. Bolsonaro posed for more photos.Eventually Mr. Leão walked back over, surrounded by the president’s security detail.“Why so aggressive?” Mr. Bolsonaro asked.“Because when I tried to come here, I was forbidden from coming in and talking to you,” Mr. Leão replied.The two men debated Brazilian politics for about five minutes before Mr. Bolsonaro got back into his vehicle and left.Mr. Bolsonaro’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment.Mr. Leão, 26, is a social-media personality with nearly 50,000 followers on both YouTube and Instagram. He told The Times that he is also a lawyer and had gone to the entrance of the presidential residence every day for more than 50 days to question the president on camera.“The main goal was to discuss the mistakes of his government, and his reaction I found quite absurd,” he said. “He likes to raise the flag of freedom of expression, but where is that freedom for the other side who questions him?”Beyond the bizarre sight of the president scuffling with a YouTuber, the insult that Mr. Leão repeatedly shouted at Mr. Bolsonaro has now taken on a life of its own, quickly inspiring memes and parody songs and even being projected onto the side of a building. Critics of Mr. Bolsonaro have quickly latched on to the insult, which is cutting, playful and slightly vulgar all at the same time, as a new label for the polarizing president.The insult — “tchutchuca do centrão” — has posed a particular challenge for foreign correspondents trying to translate it for their audiences. The translation is particularly tricky because both words, “tchutchuca” and “centrão,” are deeply Brazilian and have complicated backgrounds.The “centrão” is the powerful centrist coalition of political parties that effectively controls Congress and has long been criticized for cutting back-room deals to benefit its members and lobbyists. Translators, linguists and others with a deep knowledge of both Brazilian Portuguese and English said it could be translated as “pork barrelers,” “the political establishment” or perhaps “the Big Center.”“Tchutchuca” (pronounced choo-CHOO-kah) is even trickier. Believed to have roots in Angolan and the Indigenous Tupi language, and linked to words that mean “a little crazy” and “jumping around,” a version of it eventually became a sort of term of endearment in Brazil.Then, in 2001, a hit Brazilian funk song gave tchutchuca new life, with a chorus that went: “Come, come, tchutchuca / Come here to your tiger / I’m going to throw you on the bed.” Over time, tchutchuca came to mean a submissive woman.In 2019, the word entered the world of politics when a congressman called Brazil’s economic minister a tchutchuca to the banks.The translators and linguists said that in the context of Mr. Leão’s insult, it could be translated as the centrão’s lap dog or errand boy, or as an epithet referring to a female dog. The Associated Press settled on “darling.” Tom Phillips, the Guardian’s longtime correspondent in Brazil, considered “the establishment’s bimbo” or “pork-barrel tootsie.”Flora Thomson-DeVeaux, an American who has lived in Brazil on and off for more than a decade and who translates books from Portuguese to English, said any English translation of the Brazilian left’s new nickname for Mr. Bolsonaro fails to capture both the quirky sound and the biting, nuanced meaning.“Tchutchuca was innocent and then there was a naughty twist on it. So something like ‘pussycat’ would fit,” she said. “But pussycat is too common parlance in English, so I was thinking something that almost echoed the sound of ‘tchutchuca.’”Her answer? “If it were a novel, I might try to translate tchutchuca as pussy-wussy.”Leonardo Coelho contributed reporting More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      With Trump, Merrick Garland Can’t Afford to Miss

      by

      The two weeks since the F.B.I. descended on Mar-a-Lago have felt remarkably familiar. It’s not just that Donald Trump is dominating headlines once again; it’s that all the hits of 2017 and 2018 are being played again: legal experts cobbling together complex theories out of fragmentary information, exciting Twitter speculation about espionage and treason, a “this time we’ve got him” spirit unseen since the days of Bob Mueller devotional candles.The familiarity is useful; it means that we can look back and consider why they didn’t “get him” then, why Russiagate ended in a relative fizzle and sealed Republicans into a permanent suspicion of any investigation into Trumpian malfeasance.The Russia investigation was predicated — in the public eye and, at least in part, in its legal origins — on dire and dramatic scenarios: that Donald Trump had been cultivated as an agent of influence by Moscow, that there was a secret alliance between Trump’s inner circle and Russian intelligence, that the Trump campaign and the Russians had effectively collaborated in the hacking and dissemination of the Democratic National Committee’s emails. (And lordy, that maybe there was a pee tape.)None of these scenarios were proved by the investigation. As many Trump critics hastened to argue, the Mueller report did not exonerate the president or his campaign from wrongdoing. But the guilt established or suggested involved many things done in the clear light of day in an election that Trump won (encouraging Russian hackers and touting the information released), things attempted but never brought to fruition (some hapless, “Burn After Reading”-level attempts to connect with Russian dirt peddlers) and possible obstructions of justice in the course of the Mueller inquiry.Meanwhile, it also became clear that the investigation itself was guilty of process abuses, particularly in the way that the F.B.I. went about obtaining FISA warrants. And there was an obvious feedback loop between this investigative overreach and the overheated media coverage — the fact that law enforcement was unwisely using the infamous Steele dossier as a predicate encouraged journalists to amplify the dossier’s extreme scenarios, because after all, if the F.B.I. took them seriously, they must be very serious indeed.The endpoint of the investigation, then, reminded everyone that Trump is a self-interested intriguer surrounded by low-minded hacks. But it also made both the feds and the press look as if they had overreached in search of a Watergate ending. And for the partisan mind, the second part loomed inevitably larger, confirming Trump’s supporters in their belief that whatever sins their man might commit, the deep state was always out to get him.Now here we are again, and like the decisions of Mueller and James Comey before him, Merrick Garland’s choices turn on facts that the public can see only through a glass darkly. But I sincerely hope that the attorney general had the Russiagate experience in mind when he signed off on the search of Mar-a-Lago and that he considers how Mueller’s investigation finished as he considers his next move.The lesson to be drawn is emphatically not that Trump needs to be given permanent immunity because of a “don’t arrest ex-presidents” rule or out of fears that his supporters will take to the streets or launch lone-wolf attacks on the F.B.I.The lesson, rather, is that if the agents of the state come after Trump, and especially now when they come as representatives of an administration that might face him in the next election, they can’t afford to miss.Not only in the jury box but also in the court of public opinion, it needs to be clear, crystal clear, what separates any crimes he might be charged with from — for example — the perjury and obstruction of justice that didn’t send Bill Clinton to prison or the breach of intelligence protocols that Hillary Clinton wasn’t charged with. You don’t just need a plausible legal case that tests interesting questions about presidential declassification powers; you need an easy-to-explain slam-dunk.So if you have Trump taking design documents for nuclear weapons and shopping them to his pals in Saudi Arabia, congratulations — you got him; lock him up. If you have him taking boxes of notes from foreign leaders because he’s a childish egomaniac who thinks that he’s earned his White House souvenirs, well, then take the documents back, declare victory for the public interest and stop there. And if he took documents about the Russia investigation itself, of the sort that he wanted declassified during his presidency, well, tread carefully, lest you trap us all in an awful time loop where it’s forever 2017.It seems like a reasonable presumption that the documents in question are more serious than just some notes to Kim Jong-un but that the potential incrimination falls short of Trump literally selling secrets. But that’s a presumption, not a prediction. I’ve learned to be unsurprised by Trump’s folly and venality but also by his capacity to induce self-defeating blunders among people and institutions I would have considered relatively sensible before his ascent.So no predictions, just the warning: Don’t miss.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

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Stacey Abrams’ Personal Evolution on Abortion Rights

      by

      The Georgia Democrat, a child of Methodist preachers, once identified as an abortion foe. Now, she is putting her defense of abortion rights — and the story of her conversion — at the center of her campaign for governor.DUBLIN, Ga. — On the day that a leaked draft opinion suggested the Supreme Court was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, Stacey Abrams addressed the abortion rights group Emily’s List and preached about abortion rights with “the zeal of the converted.”Early in her professional career, she opposed abortion rights, she volunteered, adding that as a teenager she had criticized a friend who considered having an abortion.“I was wrong,” she said. “But I’ve worked hard to make myself right.”Ms. Abrams is among scores of Democrats pushing their defense of abortion rights to the center of their midterm campaigns, hoping anger over the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade will energize the Democratic base and push fence-sitting moderates into her corner. But she is the rare Democrat eager to acknowledge that she didn’t always support abortion rights.The daughter of Methodist ministers living in the Deep South, Ms. Abrams grew up believing abortion was morally wrong. Conversations with other women, a friend’s deliberations over having an abortion and her own political ambitions led her to rethink her stance, she says.Ms. Abrams’ personal approach to talking about abortion is new for the longtime Georgia politician. She did not emphasize her shift when she first ran for governor in 2018. But today, Ms. Abrams says she uses the story to connect with voters who may personally oppose abortion but, perhaps for the first time, are confronting the reality of new government restrictions. In Georgia, most abortions are now banned after six weeks of pregnancy, based on a law signed by Ms. Abrams’ Republican rival, Gov. Brian Kemp.Talking about her own story is “giving them permission to say that choice should exist,” Ms. Abrams said in an interview.“I want people to understand that I know where they’re coming from,” Ms. Abrams said. “But it also creates the opportunity for people to tell you where they stand, as well.”Ms. Abrams’ strategy is something of a throwback. For decades, Democrats treaded carefully when talking about abortion, often assuming voters were disapproving and uncomfortable with the procedure, even if they supported the rights protected by Roe v. Wade. For years, Democratic leaders, starting with Bill Clinton in 1992, declared that their goal was to make abortion “safe, legal and rare,” in an attempt to unite voters with a broad range of views on the issue.For some Democrats, the phrase became emblematic of the party’s willingness to cede ground to abortion rights opponents and attach shame to the procedures. And in the wake of the court’s decision this summer, some are again criticizing the party for using messaging that lets abortion foes frame the debate.“I don’t think that Democrats as a whole — as a party — have talked enough about this issue,” said Renitta Shannon, a Georgia state representative, who did not specifically criticize Ms. Abrams. “All this time, we’ve been relying on the opinion of the court to hold intact people’s reproductive freedom, and that is not a good strategy.”Ms. Abrams has clear reasons for trying to use the issue to cast as wide a net as possible. After voters in conservative Kansas overwhelmingly voted to guard abortion protections, Democrats across the country are hoping the issue shifts momentum in their direction during a year when other political forces — ongoing economic anxiety and President Joe Biden’s weak approval ratings — are working against them.Abortion rights demonstrators outside the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.Kendrick Brinson for The New York TimesNearly 55 percent of voters in Georgia oppose the Supreme Court’s ruling reversing Roe v. Wade, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll released last month.That poll also showed Ms. Abrams trailing Mr. Kemp by five points and, notably, losing ground with Black voters in the state. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Eric Adams Is Using Endorsements to Influence Policy

      by

      The mayor has chosen sides in at least 10 primaries this year, as he looks to enact criminal justice changes and defeat left-leaning candidates.Most big-city mayors, especially those in the relative infancy of their tenures, typically try to avoid wading into fractious party primaries, mindful that their goal is to build consensus.Mayor Eric Adams of New York City does not subscribe to that theory.Just seven months into his first term, Mr. Adams, a Democrat, has injected himself into his party’s divide, making endorsements in roughly a dozen state legislative primaries.Mr. Adams has endorsed incumbents, upstart challengers, and even a minister with a history of making antisemitic and homophobic statements.Behind all the endorsements lies a common theme: The mayor wants to push Albany and his party away from the left, toward the center.“I just want reasonable thinking lawmakers. I want people that are responding to the constituents,” Mr. Adams said Thursday. “The people of this city, they want to support police, they want safe streets, they want to make sure people who are part of the catch-release-repeat system don’t continue to hurt innocent New Yorkers.”In Tuesday’s State Senate primary, the mayor has endorsed three candidates facing rivals backed by the Democratic Socialists of America. The mayor said the endorsements are meant to help elect people willing to tighten the state’s bail law, a move that he believes is needed to address an uptick in serious crime.Mr. Adams’s most striking endorsement might be his decision to back the Rev. Conrad Tillard, who has disavowed his remarks about gay people and Jews, over incumbent Senator Jabari Brisport, a member of the Democratic Socialists.The mayor, who proudly hires people with troubled pasts, said Mr. Tillard is a changed man. During a recent interview on WABC radio, Mr. Tillard said that Mr. Adams was elected with a “mandate” to make New York City safer.“I want to join him in Albany, and I want to join other legislators who have common sense, who realize that without safe streets, safe communities, we cannot have a thriving city,” he said.The mayor has also held a fund-raiser for Miguelina Camilo, a lawyer running against Senator Gustavo Rivera in the Bronx. Mr. Rivera was endorsed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has criticized Mr. Adams for some of his centrist views; Ms. Camilo is the candidate of the Bronx Democratic Party.In a newly created Senate district that covers parts of Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan, the mayor has endorsed a moderate Democrat, Elizabeth Crowley, over Kristen Gonzalez, a tech worker who is supported by the Democratic Socialists and the Working Families Party. Mike Corbett, a former City Council staff member, is also running. The race has been flooded with outside money supporting Ms. Crowley.In Brooklyn, Mr. Adams endorsed incumbent Senator Kevin Parker, who is facing a challenge from Kaegan Mays-Williams, a former Manhattan assistant district attorney, and David Alexis, a former Lyft driver and co-founder of the Drivers Cooperative who also has support from the Democratic Socialists.Senator Kevin Parker, endorsed by the mayor, faces a Democratic Socialist opponent.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesThree candidates — Mr. Brisport, Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Alexis — whose rivals were supported by Mr. Adams said they are opposed to revising the bail law to keep more people in jail before their trials.“When it comes to an issue like bail reform, what we don’t want to have is a double standard where if you have enough money you can make bail and get out, but if you are poor or working class you don’t,” Ms. Gonzalez said.Mr. Brisport said that the mayor’s motive extends beyond bail and criminal justice issues.Mr. Adams, Mr. Brisport said, is “making a concerted effort to build a team that will do his bidding in Albany.”The mayor did not disagree.In his first dealings with Albany as a mayor, Mr. Adams fell short of accomplishing his legislative agenda. He had some victories, but was displeased with the Legislature’s refusal to accommodate his wishes on the bail law or to grant him long-term control of the schools, two issues central to his agenda.While crime overall remains comparatively low and homicides and shootings are down, other crimes such as robbery, assault and burglary have increased as much as 40 percent compared with this time last year. Without evidence, the mayor has blamed the bail reform law for letting repeat offenders out of jail.Under pressure from the governor, the Legislature in April made changes to the bail law, but the mayor has repeatedly criticized lawmakers for not going far enough.Mr. Adams has raised campaign money for Miguelina Camilo, center. Janice Chung for The New York Times“We passed a lot of laws for people who commit crimes, but I just want to see what are the list of laws we pass that deal with a New Yorker who was the victim of a crime,” Mr. Adams said. The mayor’s strategy is not entirely new. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg sought influence by donating from his personal fortune to Republicans. Mayor Bill de Blasio embarked on a disastrous fund-raising plan to help Democrats take control of the Senate in 2014. But those mayors were interceding in general elections, not intraparty primaries.In the June Assembly primaries, Mr. Adams endorsed a handful of incumbents facing upstart challengers from the left. He backed Michael Benedetto, an incumbent from the Bronx who beat back a primary challenge from Jonathan Soto, who worked for, and was endorsed by, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Adams also endorsed Assemblywoman Inez E. Dickens in Central Harlem in her victorious campaign against another candidate backed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.“The jury is still out on how much endorsements matter, but they do matter for the person being endorsed,” said Olivia Lapeyrolerie, a Democratic political strategist and former aide to Mr. de Blasio. “It’s good to keep your friends close.”Mr. Adams’s influence is not restricted to his endorsements. Striving for a Better New York, a political action committee run by one of his associates, the Rev. Alfred L. Cockfield II, donated $7,500 to Mr. Tillard in May and more than $12,000 to Mr. Parker through August.The mayor’s efforts have come under attack. Michael Gianaris, the deputy majority leader in the Senate, said there is no need to create a new faction in the Senate that is reminiscent of the Independent Democratic Conference, a group of breakaway Democrats that allowed Senate Republicans to control the chamber until they were vanquished in 2018.“Eric Adams was never very good at Senate politics when he was in the Senate,” Mr. Gianaris said. “And apparently he hasn’t gotten much better at it.”It’s unclear how much influence Mr. Adams’s endorsements will have. Sumathy Kumar, co-chair of the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, said that with the mayor’s lukewarm approval ratings, she’s betting that on-the-ground organizing will be the deciding factor in what is expected to be a low turnout primary.Mr. Parker said the mayor’s endorsement would be influential in his district and supported Mr. Adams’s push against the left wing of the party.“How many times do you have to be attacked by the D.S.A. before you realize you’re in a fight and decide to fight back?” Mr. Parker said.Emma G. Fitzsimmons contributed reporting. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How Democracy Is Under Threat Across the Globe

      by

      The United States is far from alone in facing pressure on its democratic norms and institutions. According to data from V-Dem, a monitoring institute based in Sweden, more democracies are declining, and even sliding into autocracy, today than at any point in the last century. This trend, continuing for over a decade, appears to be accelerating, data shows, affecting established and fragile democracies alike across the globe.Here’s a look at some of the latest developments.KenyaThough considered one of Africa’s most robust democracies, Kenya has faced periodic turmoil. Politicians there have sometimes exploited polarization along ethnic and geographic lines, particularly during elections. This has led to succession crises, communal violence or attacks on institutions such as the courts.A razor-thin election this August has brought with it another test for Kenyan democracy, with a senior aide to the losing candidate suggesting that their campaign might challenge the results as fraudulent.“The state of democracy in our country, Kenya, is sitting in a very hostile territory,” William Ruto, the election’s winning candidate, said at a Washington, D.C., event earlier this year.Sri LankaThis multiethnic and religiously diverse democracy has been questioned since the brother of Mahinda Rajapaksa, a former strongman, took power in the 2019 elections. The Rajapaksa family had long faced accusations of abusing power and vilifying the country’s minorities, raising fears that Sri Lanka might return to autocracy.This summer, demonstrations over economic issues culminated in protesters storming the presidential palace. The president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, resigned, but appointed an ally as his replacement; that ally later formally became president, with the Parliament’s blessing. This has left the conflict between protesters and the influence of the Rajapaksa dynasty in limbo.Hungary“The new state that we are building is an illiberal state,” Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban declared in 2014.Since then, Mr. Orban, who casts himself as a vanguard of the global populist right, has retooled the courts, the Constitution and voting rules in ways that have cemented his rule. He has also wielded state-run and private media against opponents, promoting disinformation and nationalist narratives.Mr. Orban has cast these steps as necessary to defend Hungary from the corrupting influences of racial diversity, non-European immigration and the European Union. While opposition parties have risen built on discontentment with Mr. Orban, he retains a meaningful base of support.BrazilPresident Jair Bolsonaro, who praises Donald J. Trump as a political model, has long criticized Brazil’s democratic institutions as corrupt. He has also spoken fondly of the country’s right-wing military dictatorship, which ruled from 1964 to 1985.Mr. Bolsonaro is already questioning the legitimacy of Brazil’s presidential race coming up in October, in which he has consistently trailed in the polls. He has even enlisted the help of some military leaders in raising doubts about the integrity of the vote.Though it is unclear whether Mr. Bolsonaro would actually seek to overturn or reject a loss, his rabble rousing has elevated international concern over the stability of Latin America’s largest democracy.The PhilippinesRodrigo Duterte’s six years as president in the Philippines saw political rivals and critical journalists jailed, the widespread dissemination of pro-Duterte disinformation and a wave of vigilante police violence that left thousands dead.A fiery populist, Mr. Duterte positioned himself as defending democracy from the opponents he cast as threats to the country from within, winning support from his base despite his excesses while in office.Though he left office willingly at the end of his term in May, voters elected a new president, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., that rights groups fear will continue his style of rule. The new President Marcos is the son of a former dictator of the Philippines. His vice president, Sara Duterte, is Mr. Duterte’s daughter.IndiaUnder Narendra Modi, India’s right-wing prime minister since 2014, a sharp rise in extreme Hindu nationalism, often backed by his government’s allies, has divided Indian society.The country’s roughly 200 million Muslims have faced political marginalization and, in many cases, deadly religious violence, with officials at times looking the other way. Critical journalists come under growing pressure from both the government and an increasingly nationalist media.Mr. Modi’s government clamped down fiercely on the disputed region of Kashmir and responded harshly to a wave of protests by Indian farmers last year, raising fears that his rule was growing increasingly strong-armed.TurkeyIn his nearly 20 years in power, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has remade Turkish democracy into a vessel for his personal rule. Once seen as a liberalizing force, Mr. Erdogan has curtailed political freedoms and centralized power so drastically that he is widely seen as a dictator.After a 2016 coup attempt against him, Mr. Erdogan’s administration detained 100,000 people and purged 150,000 government employees from their jobs, cementing his power. Still, there remains enough of a semblance of democracy that opposition groups unseated Mr. Erdogan’s ally from the powerful mayoralty of Istanbul in 2019 and hope for further gains.PolandOnce Eastern Europe’s great post-communist success story, Poland is now facing deep political polarization. The ruling right-wing party has sought to subordinate the traditionally independent judiciary and media to its will. It also railed against the European Union, which has questioned whether Polish leaders’ are upholding the rule of law.In recent months, fears for Poland’s democracy have ebbed slightly. Polish leaders have sought to repair ties with the European Union, including over democracy matters, as a way to fight against what they see as the Russian threat to Europe. Still, rights groups say that Polish democracy has hardly reversed its backward steps.El SalvadorThis small Central American country had established a fragile democracy in the wake of its wrenching civil war, which ended in 1992 but created wounds that are still healing.A young outsider, Nayib Bukele, won the presidency in 2019 promising change. In office, however, he has curbed basic rights, purged judges, jailed thousands with little due process and deployed the army, all in what he calls an emergency measure to fight crime.Still, even as rights groups and international monitors raise alarms, Mr. Bukele has grown wildly popular, a reminder that, in today’s world, would-be strongmen are often cheered while on the rise.VenezuelaOnce South America’s oldest democracy and wealthiest economy, Venezuela has collapsed into an economic disaster zone, with much of the population hungry and ruled under what is widely considered a dictatorship.The country is often held up by democracy scholars as representative of how democracies tend to decline today: slowly, pulled down from within by elected populists who treat opponents and institutions as illegitimate, and whose actions may initially be quite popular.The leader who oversaw much of this decline, the leftist firebrand Hugo Chávez, died in 2013. His successor, Nicolás Maduro, has overseen deadly crackdowns on protesters, as well as asserting forceful control over the courts and legislature.Czech Republic and SloveniaWhen the populist outsider and billionaire media tycoon Andrej Babis became the prime minister of the Czech Republic in 2017, there were fears he might follow the path created by Mr. Orban in Hungary toward arch-conservative illiberalism. As nearby Slovenia elected its own right-wing populist, concerns arose of a bloc of nations that might break the European Union from within.While Mr. Babis did inch his country in that direction, he was ultimately felled in the 2021 elections, when several opposition parties banded together against the leader they called a threat to Czech democracy. Slovenian voters cast out their populist government the next year. Both countries served as demonstrations that doubts around democracy can still sometimes recede. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In Deep Red Texas, Beto O’Rourke Takes on Guns and Abortion

      by

      WHITESBORO, Texas — As supporters of Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic candidate for Texas governor, emerged from a crowded campaign event in a quaint, conservative bastion north of Dallas, Treva Sanges was there to protest them.“Murderers!” she called out.Most walked by her, but Abbi Gregory and a friend, who support abortion rights, stopped and engaged Ms. Sanges in a lengthy debate in the late evening sun. The women quickly realized that while they were political opponents, they were also once neighbors.“I actually have a few of her art pieces hanging in my house,” Ms. Gregory, 22, said. “And I love her to pieces,” added Ms. Sanges, 58. The women eventually found a thin reed of agreement: abortion bans should allow exceptions for child rape, which Texas law does not provide.“If a 10-year-old gets raped, by all means, you know, go and get it taken care of,” Ms. Sanges said.Locked in a race against Gov. Greg Abbott that has grown unexpectedly close, Mr. O’Rourke has been venturing into deeply conservative corners of rural Texas, sparking confrontations and conversations between Democrats and Republicans who may rarely speak with each other about politics, even if they cross paths every day in the local grocery store or at church.“This is refreshing to see people like me — there’s probably five Democrats in the county,” said John Wade, 73, a retired Methodist elder who came to see Mr. O’Rourke in Bowie, Texas, where nearly 90 percent of voters chose Donald J. Trump in 2020.Supporters listened to Mr. O’Rourke during a campaign rally in Whitesboro.Allison V. Smith for The New York TimesMr. O’Rourke took a photo with Caroline Gomez, a supporter, in Bowie.Allison V. Smith for The New York TimesAt five recent town hall-style gatherings across the deep red rural northeast of Texas, Mr. O’Rourke invited protesters inside for a break from the oppressive heat, answered questions from supporters of Mr. Abbott and took pains to direct his attacks against the governor, not Republicans in general.Mr. O’Rourke sees such efforts as critically important to his uphill campaign to retake the governor’s mansion for Democrats for the first time since Ann Richards mounted an improbable, come-from-behind victory in 1990.“I can’t win this with Democrats alone,” Mr. O’Rourke said in an interview after an event in Texarkana, along the Arkansas border. “I hope that that gives more Republicans a greater opportunity to be part of this, without feeling like they are responsible for what Greg Abbott is doing now, because they’re not.”A former El Paso congressman who made his name with a brash challenge and narrow loss to Senator Ted Cruz in 2018, Mr. O’Rourke has sought to avoid the mistakes of that race, in which his voter turnout efforts also helped Mr. Cruz, and his campaign eschewed big-money supporters. This time, he has taken a few $1 million donations, including from the billionaire George Soros.“I’m raising the money I need to win this race,” Mr. O’Rourke said.For years, Democrats have forecast a political shift in Texas, based on the state’s growing and more liberal urban centers. Mr. O’Rourke’s run is the latest attempt to test that prediction, which has yet to come true.Mr. O’Rourke discussed guns with Rod Parker, a revivalist preacher with a .40-caliber handgun, at a church in Whitesboro last month.Allison V. Smith for The New York TimesMr. O’Rourke attracted protesters in Whitesboro. Many had handguns on their hips, and one had a flag depicting the weapon in place of a cannon over the famous slogan from the Texas revolution: “Come and Take It.”Allison V. Smith for The New York TimesWhat has changed this time, for him and the state, has been the resurgence of emotional debates over guns and abortion. Those hot-button issues are more relevant than ever in Texas, with a school shooting in Uvalde in May and a clampdown on abortion made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the issue in June. They have invigorated Mr. O’Rourke’s longtime supporters and provided an opening for him to move into conservative strongholds around Texas — like the rural counties north of Dallas — and present his positions as moderate compared with those of Mr. Abbott and other Republican leaders.While Mr. O’Rourke is hoping to find more votes, he is still likely to lose in these corners of the state by large margins.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsLiz Cheney’s Lopsided Loss: The Republican congresswoman’s defeat in Wyoming exposed the degree to which former President Donald J. Trump still controls the party’s present — and its near future.2024 Hint: Hours after her loss, Ms. Cheney acknowledged that she was “thinking” about a White House bid. But her mission to thwart Donald J. Trump presents challenges.The ‘Impeachment 10’: With Ms. Cheney’s defeat, only two of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump remain.Alaska Races: Senator Lisa Murkowski and Sarah Palin appeared to be on divergent paths following contests that offered a glimpse at the state’s independent streak.“I had my picture with him — if I was running again, I’d lose my campaign,” said L.D. Williamson, 85, the top executive in Red River County who first won office as a Democrat before switching to the Republican Party, joining most of the county’s roughly 12,000 residents. (Mr. Trump won the county 78 percent to 22 percent.)Mr. O’Rourke packed a restaurant on the main square in Clarksville. In his remarks, he outlined a moderated position on guns from some he had taken in the past — expanded background checks, raising the age to 21 from 18 to buy an AR-15-style rifle and a “red flag” law to take firearms from those deemed a risk.“You don’t need an AR-15 to defend yourself and your home,” he said. But, he added, “I’m not here to stand on principle. I’m not here to tell you only what my ideal is. I’m here to get something done.”Still, Mr. O’Rourke has exhibited some raw feelings on the issue: While speaking in Mineral Wells, Texas, he lashed out after a man in a group holding Abbott campaign signs was heard laughing as Mr. O’Rourke spoke about the killing of school children in Uvalde.“It may be funny to you,” he said, lashing out with an expletive, “but it’s not funny to me.” His supporters cheered. A video of the encounter has been viewed nearly five million times.Even before that exchange, the Abbott campaign had grown concerned that the presence of the governor’s supporters at Mr. O’Rourke’s events could backfire. An email from an Abbott campaign worker, described by The Texas Tribune, cautioned them not to go into Mr. O’Rourke’s events or talk to him, not because of fears of confrontations, but because of concerns that it could appear in photos as if they had been converted.Dave Carney, a top campaign strategist for Mr. Abbott, stressed that the campaign welcomed Mr. O’Rourke’s frequent speeches, in which the campaign says he can be seen waffling or pandering to voters of different stripes on gun control, the oil industry and police funding. “He looks at his phone, at what area code he’s in, and he tries to appeal,” Mr. Carney said. “L.B.J. could get away with that, but it doesn’t work today.”Windmills between Bowie and Whitesboro. Mr. O’Rourke has been venturing into deeply conservative corners of rural Texas.Allison V. Smith for The New York TimesHayden Head, 18, of Parker County, protested outside the campaign stop in Bowie. Mr. O’Rourke is locked in a race against Gov. Greg Abbott that has grown unexpectedly close.Allison V. Smith for The New York TimesMr. Abbott agreed this month to a debate, something Mr. Carney had said would happen only if the race were close. Several recent polls have put Mr. O’Rourke around five percentage points behind the governor.At each of the five campaign stops, Mr. O’Rourke stressed broadly popular positions: expanding Medicaid, canceling statewide school assessment tests, cutting property taxes, legalizing marijuana.He was repeatedly asked about one past position, taken during the 2020 presidential primary: a vow, after a deadly mass shooting in El Paso, to “take your AR-15.” The issue has been front of mind for his supporters — who have resurrected the issue since the shooting in Uvalde — and for those who have shown up to protest him, openly bearing arms.The politics of abortion have also appeared to energize Mr. O’Rourke’s campaign. A clear majority of his crowds were women, and the loudest cheers came whenever he discussed his support for abortion rights.“The reason I came is because he was a premature baby, and I am now considered a high-risk pregnancy,” said Azucena Salinas, 20, a pregnant substitute teacher who stood at the back of Mr. O’Rourke’s event in Pittsburg with her 8-month-old son, Malakai. “I want to have the choice and the right for the doctors to be able to give me an abortion when my life is in danger.”Apart from courting conservatives, Mr. O’Rourke’s strategy is focused on turning out new voters, recruiting an army of volunteers — his campaign already claims 80,000 — and campaigning across the state. He is currently in the middle of a 49-day drive across Texas that ends next month.Mr. Carney said Mr. Abbott had also been reaching across party lines to disaffected Democrats, particularly those Hispanic voters who have drifted toward the Republican Party.At his stop in Whitesboro, Mr. O’Rourke drew hundreds of supporters to a renovated church near a downtown gun store. He also attracted scores of protesters, many with handguns on their hips. One man carried an AR-15-style rifle, and another had a flag depicting the weapon in place of a cannon over the famous slogan from the Texas revolution: “Come and Take It.”“The race is really, really close,” said Rod Parker, a revivalist preacher with a .40-caliber handgun on his hip who helped organize the protest. If Mr. O’Rourke wins, he said, Texas would “end up being like a California or an Oregon or a Chicago, and we’re not putting up with that garbage in this town.”Inside the campaign event, Amy Maxey, 46, said she was happy to see the crowd of mostly fellow Democrats gathered there, but she also bemoaned the anger that Mr. O’Rourke’s visit had brought to the surface. She said that as she entered, a protester had told her she was not a Christian because of her support for Mr. O’Rourke.“Our kids grew up in this town together,” she said. “I’m definitely a Christian. I go to church here.”After the event, tensions grew. Mr. Parker and a large group waited outside for Mr. O’Rourke to emerge. Some taunted his supporters.“Baby killers!” they shouted. “Pedophiles!”Inside, Mr. O’Rourke posed for photos and talked to anyone who wanted to ask a question or share their story, including Trey Ramsey, a former police officer who said he backed Mr. Trump in 2016 and Mr. Abbott in 2018 but had become disillusioned with the Republican Party. His wife is volunteering for Mr. O’Rourke.Eventually, Mr. Parker grew impatient with waiting outside and, along with several armed supporters, entered the church. Some shouted at Mr. O’Rourke. As they filled the center aisle, a few dozen feet from Mr. O’Rourke, the town’s police chief urged them to “keep cool,” but people were ruffled nonetheless.“It was a real kind of a shock,” Mr. Ramsey said. “As a former law enforcement officer, my hairs immediately stood up.”Mr. O’Rourke agreed to speak with Mr. Parker. They shook hands and, for five minutes, engaged in a discussion of guns.“I bet that we can agree on something like a universal background check,” Mr. O’Rourke said. “We might be able to agree on a red-flag law.”“No, sir!” shouted a man who had entered with Mr. Parker.“The reason for the people to have the Second Amendment, OK, was for — so that we could protect ourselves from big government,” Mr. Parker said.“You think your right to have a gun is so that you can use it against your government?” Mr. O’Rourke responded.“Not necessarily,” Mr. Parker said. Before walking away, he told Mr. O’Rourke that he was “not welcome in this town.”“Hey, there were a lot of people who just welcomed us to this town,” Mr. O’Rourke responded. “And we’ll be back, again and again.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Doug Mastriano Gets Pennsylvania Republicans to Close Ranks Behind Him

      by

      STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Before Pennsylvania’s primary, much of the state’s Republican establishment agreed that Doug Mastriano would be a disaster as the nominee for governor.Andy Reilly, the state’s Republican national committeeman, had joined a stop-Mastriano effort by rival candidates, who feared that the far-right state senator and prolific spreader of election conspiracy theories would squander an otherwise winnable race.Yet on a warm evening last month, Mr. Reilly opened his suburban Philadelphia home for a backyard fund-raiser for Mr. Mastriano, who won his primary in May. Guests chipped in $150 for ribs and pulled pork and listened to Mr. Mastriano, fresh from an uproar over his presence on Gab, a social media site that is a haven for hate speech.Mr. Reilly later defended Mr. Mastriano as the better choice to lead Pennsylvania over his Democratic opponent, Josh Shapiro. “The question is can Doug Mastriano keep the Republican Party base and all the factions together?” Mr. Reilly said.In one of the most closely watched governor’s races of the year, Pennsylvania Republican officials who had warned that Mr. Mastriano was unelectable have largely closed ranks behind him, after he proved to be the overwhelming choice of base Republicans. On Friday, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida plans to headline a rally with Mr. Mastriano in Pittsburgh, a bearhug from one of the party’s most popular national figures.Mr. Shapiro, the state attorney general, has used a huge fund-raising advantage to batter Mr. Mastriano in TV attack ads as an extremist on abortion and on the 2020 election, opening a double-digit lead in polls. Still, Democrats remain anxious they could lose to Mr. Mastriano because of the free-floating anger of the electorate this year, with most voters worried primarily about the economy.Josh Shapiro, with supporters in Lock Haven, Pa., has battered Mr. Mastriano in TV attack ads as an extremist.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesWhether the recent run of Democratic successes nationally — including the climate and drug-pricing legislative package and the resounding defeat of an anti-abortion measure in Kansas — can shift the fundamental midterm equation remains unclear.“The environment that Joe Biden has created for Josh Shapiro makes this year probably the only year that a Mastriano-type candidate could win in a purple state like Pennsylvania,” said Matt Brouillette, the head of a conservative political group in the state that opposed Mr. Mastriano in the primary. “While the Democrats want to focus on Jan. 6 and Roe v. Wade, the electorate is focused on putting food on their table and filling up the tanks in their cars.”The Democratic anxiety was on display recently at a party picnic in liberal State College, the home of Pennsylvania State University. At Mr. Shapiro’s mention of Mr. Mastriano during a speech, a woman shouted, “You better win!”More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsLiz Cheney’s Lopsided Loss: The Republican congresswoman’s defeat in Wyoming exposed the degree to which former President Donald J. Trump still controls the party’s present — and its near future.2024 Hint: Hours after her loss, Ms. Cheney acknowledged that she was “thinking” about a White House bid. But her mission to thwart Donald J. Trump presents challenges.The ‘Impeachment 10’: With Ms. Cheney’s defeat, only two of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump remain.Alaska Races: Senator Lisa Murkowski and Sarah Palin appeared to be on divergent paths following contests that offered a glimpse at the state’s independent streak.There was nervous laughter. The worry reflects the alarm of Democrats that if Mr. Mastriano, 58, becomes governor, he would sign severe abortion restrictions and would have the power to subvert the 2024 presidential election in the swing state in favor of the G.O.P. nominee.A Shapiro campaign event in State College. Democrats in Pennsylvania are worried about Mr. Mastriano’s positions on abortion and voting.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York Times“I hear it every single day,” Mr. Shapiro told the crowd. “They’re worried about their rights being ripped away from them.”Mr. Mastriano, a retired Army officer who led Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in Pennsylvania, marched on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, passing police barricades breached by other marchers. He has boasted that as governor, “I get to decertify any or all machines in the state.” He has called for compelling all nine million registered voters in the state to re-register, which experts say would violate federal law.“These are dangerous, extreme positions he’s taken, and these are things I know the people of Pennsylvania reject,” Mr. Shapiro, 49, said in an interview.Mr. Shapiro compared the unusually high turnout in deep-red Kansas in favor of abortion rights to how the issue is motivating his own supporters. “We have seen incredible intensity in our campaign post-Dobbs,” he said, referring to the Supreme Court decision leaving it to states to protect or deny abortion access.Many women who attended his events agreed, saying that abortion is their most important issue. “I was the generation that was young when Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land, and I’ve known women whose health was ruined because of an illegal abortion,” said Bonnie Hannis, 80, who came to hear Mr. Shapiro in rural Clinton County.“I’m excited to defend my reproductive rights,” said Gianna Renzo, 19, who grew up in the county and is now a student at Princeton. “I see women my age who are typically from Republican families, and they’re going to come over to the Democratic side” because of abortion.Mr. Mastriano, the sponsor in the State Legislature of a six-week abortion ban with no exceptions, has appeared to modulate that position lately, saying lawmakers will write whatever bill they choose and “my personal views are irrelevant.”But there are few signs that he has broadened his appeal to independent and swing voters, especially in the suburbs, who have played a pivotal role in recent Pennsylvania elections. He was supported by 82 percent of Republicans in a Fox News poll in late July, but independents preferred Mr. Shapiro by 28 points.It remains to be seen if Mr. Mastriano can broaden his appeal to independent and swing voters.Dustin Franz for The New York TimesMr. Mastriano declined to comment for this article.He has routinely snubbed the state’s TV news outlets and newspapers that might help him reach a broader audience. It is a purposeful strategy aimed at exciting conservatives who believe that Democrats have “the media in their pockets,” as he recently put it.This week, he said he would not participate in traditional debates run by independent news organizations because of what he called their “hidden partisan agenda.” He proposed debates in which each candidate names a moderator — a nonstarter for the Shapiro campaign, which called the idea an “obvious stunt.”Mr. Mastriano speaks almost exclusively to far-right podcasters like Stephen K. Bannon, conservative talk radio hosts and Fox News. On a recent swing through northwest Pennsylvania, he brushed off a Pittsburgh TV station that sought to interview him, and even the small-circulation Meadville Tribune.One result of that approach is that he seldom has to field tough questions. And his poor fund-raising — he ended the primary season with just $400,000 in his campaign account, compared with $13.4 million for Mr. Shapiro — has left him unable to run TV ads all summer to counter a barrage of attacks from his opponent.The Shapiro ads use Mr. Mastriano’s words to paint him as outside the mainstream, not just on abortion and election denial, but on gay marriage, which he has said should “absolutely not” be legal, and on global warming, which he called “fake science.”“You’ve basically got a one-person governor’s race right now in terms of voter contact,” said Christopher Nicholas, a Republican consultant in the state. “All the folks who listen to those far-right podcasts, I think he maxed out his vote potential. He has to move past his base.”At a recent appearance by Mr. Mastriano at the York County Fair, there were no signs on the sprawling fairgrounds directing potential voters his way. Outside the hall where he was to appear, a large crowd on bleachers at the appointed hour turned out to be waiting for the Hot Dog Pig Races.Mr. Mastriano showed up inside at the county Republican booth. He did not give a speech, but shook hands and posed for pictures with several dozen supporters.Donna VanDyne, an insurance agent, supported a no-exceptions abortion ban, claiming that victims of rape or incest who give birth adjust. “When they have their baby, they have each other and become support systems for one another,” she said.Dawn Smith, an aspiring teacher’s aide, repeated a debunked conspiracy theory Mr. Mastriano had spread about voting machines. “They switched President Trump’s votes to Joe Biden’s votes with the Dominion machines,” she claimed.Wayne Liek, a retired truck driver, recalling prayers he said in school in the 1960s, agreed with Mr. Mastriano that the Constitutional separation of church and state was, as Mr. Mastriano described it, “a myth.”A core of Mr. Mastriano’s popularity with Republicans is his embrace of views associated with Christian nationalism, the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and often intertwined with far-right conspiratorial thinking.Mr. Mastriano, the sponsor in the legislature of a six-week abortion ban with no exceptions, has appeared to modulate that position lately.Dustin Franz for The New York TimesFew attendees seemed aware of the furor over Mr. Mastriano’s presence on Gab. His campaign had paid $5,000 to broaden his support with users of the social media site, which is known as a haven for white nationalists. A post by Mr. Mastriano in July criticizing Democratic policies drew dozens of replies that were antisemitic insults of Mr. Shapiro.Gab’s founder, Andrew Torba, defended Mr. Mastriano in videos laced with antisemitic vitriol. Mr. Mastriano distanced himself from Mr. Torba on July 28, saying that he rejected “antisemitism in any form.’’At a later appearance where he did give a speech, in Cochranton, Mr. Mastriano said: “It’s funny, they want to call us extremists. They’re the extremists.’’He attacked Mr. Shapiro for suing, as attorney general, to keep a mask mandate in schools and to uphold Gov. Tom Wolf’s shutdown of nonessential businesses early in the pandemic. Mr. Mastriano first gained a following for leading protests against restrictions to prevent the spread of Covid. Fury at those orders lingers for many conservatives.Asked about the suits, Mr. Shapiro said that he personally opposes mandates for masks and vaccines, but as the state’s top lawyer he was required to represent the governor and executive branch in litigation. He prevailed in both cases.Before he campaigned in State College, a blue island in a sea of red in central Pennsylvania, Mr. Shapiro had visited Lock Haven in nearby Clinton County.Mike Hanna Sr., a retired Democratic state lawmaker from the area, said Mr. Mastriano “has a strong base here, just like Trump.” But Mr. Hanna said the former president had lost support since inciting the mob that attacked the Capitol.“I hunt with a bunch of veterans, and they just shake their heads,” Mr. Hanna said. “Trump has done a lot to erode his standing with his base, and Mastriano’s participation in all that, and the extreme positions he’s taken, have done the same thing.”“It’d be a lot scarier for us,” Mr. Hanna said, “if the Republicans had selected a moderate.” More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      America Needs More Caregiving Support

      by

      On Tuesday President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which contains parts of his Build Back Better agenda, including major climate investments and authorization for Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. The law will reduce the cost of health care, slash carbon emissions to roughly 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, invest in clean energy vehicles and raise taxes on corporations, among other things.Make no mistake, President Biden and the Democrats in Congress have achieved a transformative investment in our future.But investments in Medicaid home and community-based services for older adults and people with disabilities, raising wages for the work force that provides caregiving, four weeks of paid family and medical leave, and subsidies for families in need of child care did not make it into law.Infrastructure isn’t only sustainable modes of transportation. As Senator Bob Casey recently said: “The bridge to work for many is someone who can come into their home and care for aging parents. For others, it’s quality, affordable child care for their kids.” Fair pay for caregiving would free up more Americans to take part in the economy.For too long we have underinvested in and undervalued caregivers. After the coronavirus pandemic hit, a breakthrough seemed possible when policies intended to help families became the focus of a national conversation.A 2020 report by AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving found that more than one in five Americans were caregivers and almost one in four of these was caring for more than one person. A more recent study by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed that a vast majority of Americans want to age at home and want the government to act to help them do so.But we can hardly sustain the existing home care work force with workers’ current median annual income just over $18,000 per year. What will we do when the aging baby boomer generation — roughly 73 million people — needs more support and services?There are more than 12 million working parents with children younger than 6 years old. Without access to paid leave, these parents must find affordable child care in order to work and provide for their families. The American Rescue Plan Act included funding to stabilize child care programs for low-income families and expanded the child tax credit for 2021, but what will happen when that funding runs out?Lawmakers must now decide how to support the care economy — including administrative and regulatory reforms as well as legislation. We should see investments in care reflected in appropriations and at the heart of the next budget reconciliation. Many voters want representatives who refuse to devalue women and families and who want caregivers to have the freedom to choose whether they leave the work force rather than be forced out of it.The Biden administration’s economic agenda has often been compared to Roosevelt’s New Deal in scope and significance, but the New Deal explicitly excluded two groups of workers — farm workers and domestic workers. Over time, these domestic workers became the backbone of the care economy, but the government never advanced comprehensive solutions to support them.Mr. Biden’s original agenda not only included these workers, but it highlighted the importance of investing holistically in the care that families need and the jobs that support it. Today, we understand that the economy doesn’t grow or work without care, including for the work force entrusted with the people who matter most in our lives. Let’s not wait another 80 years to act on that vision.Ai-jen Poo is the executive director of Caring Across Generations and the president of the National Domestic Workers Alliance.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