Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Fight Over Truth Also Has a Red State-Blue State Divide

      by

      Several states run by Democrats are pushing for stiffer rules on the spread of false information, while Republican-run states are pushing for fewer rules.To fight disinformation, California lawmakers are advancing a bill that would force social media companies to divulge their process for removing false, hateful or extremist material from their platforms. Texas lawmakers, by contrast, want to ban the largest of the companies — Facebook, Twitter and YouTube — from removing posts because of political points of view.In Washington, the state attorney general persuaded a court to fine a nonprofit and its lawyer $28,000 for filing a baseless legal challenge to the 2020 governor’s race. In Alabama, lawmakers want to allow people to seek financial damages from social media platforms that shut down their accounts for having posted false content.In the absence of significant action on disinformation at the federal level, officials in state after state are taking aim at the sources of disinformation and the platforms that propagate them — only they are doing so from starkly divergent ideological positions. In this deeply polarized era, even the fight for truth breaks along partisan lines.The result has been a cacophony of state bills and legal maneuvers that could reinforce information bubbles in a nation increasingly divided over a variety of issues — including abortion, guns, the environment — and along geographic lines.The midterm elections in November are driving much of the activity on the state level. In red states, the focus has been on protecting conservative voices on social media, including those spreading baseless claims of widespread electoral fraud.In blue states, lawmakers have tried to force the same companies to do more to stop the spread of conspiracy theories and other harmful information about a broad range of topics, including voting rights and Covid-19.“We should not stand by and just throw up our hands and say that this is an impossible beast that is just going to take over our democracy,” Washington’s governor, Jay Inslee, a Democrat, said in an interview.Calling disinformation a “nuclear weapon” threatening the country’s democratic foundations, he supports legislation that would make it a crime to spread lies about elections. He praised the $28,000 fine levied against the advocacy group that challenged the integrity of the state’s vote in 2020.“We ought to be creatively looking for potential ways to reduce its impact,” he said, referring to disinformation.The biggest hurdle to new regulations — regardless of the party pushing them — is the First Amendment. Lobbyists for the social media companies say that, while they seek to moderate content, the government should not be in the business of dictating how that’s done.Concerns over free speech defeated a bill in deeply blue Washington that would have made it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, for candidates or elected officials “to spread lies about free and fair elections when it has the likelihood to stoke violence.”Governor Inslee, who faced baseless claims of election fraud after he won a third term in 2020, supported the legislation, citing the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio. That ruling allowed states to punish speech calling for violence or criminal acts when “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”The legislation stalled in the state’s Senate in February, but Mr. Inslee said the scale of the problem required urgent action.Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington State, faced baseless claims of election fraud after he won a third term in 2020.Jovelle Tamayo for The New York TimesThe scope of the problem of disinformation, and of the power of the tech companies, has begun to chip away at the notion that free speech is politically untouchable.The new law in Texas has already reached the Supreme Court, which blocked the law from taking effect in May, though it sent the case back to a federal appeals court for further consideration. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the legislation last year, prompted in part by the decisions by Facebook and Twitter to shut down the accounts of former President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, violence on Capitol Hill.The court’s ruling signaled that it could revisit one core issue: whether social media platforms, like newspapers, retain a high degree of editorial freedom.“It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a dissent to the court’s emergency ruling suspending the law’s enforcement.A federal judge last month blocked a similar law in Florida that would have fined social media companies as much as $250,000 a day if they blocked political candidates from their platforms, which have become essential tools of modern campaigning. Other states with Republican-controlled legislatures have proposed similar measures, including Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and Alaska.Alabama’s attorney general, Steve Marshall, has created an online portal through which residents can complain that their access to social media has been restricted: alabamaag.gov/Censored. In a written response to questions, he said that social media platforms stepped up efforts to restrict content during the pandemic and the presidential election of 2020.“During this period (and continuing to present day), social media platforms abandoned all pretense of promoting free speech — a principle on which they sold themselves to users — and openly and arrogantly proclaimed themselves the Ministry of Truth,” he wrote. “Suddenly, any viewpoint that deviated in the slightest from the prevailing orthodoxy was censored.”Much of the activity on the state level today has been animated by the fraudulent assertion that Mr. Trump, and not President Biden, won the 2020 presidential election. Although disproved repeatedly, the claim has been cited by Republicans to introduce dozens of bills that would clamp down on absentee or mail-in voting in the states they control.Democrats have moved in the opposite direction. Sixteen states have expanded the abilities of people to vote, which has intensified pre-emptive accusations among conservative lawmakers and commentators that the Democrats are bent on cheating.“There is a direct line from conspiracy theories to lawsuits to legislation in states,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, the acting director of voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan election advocacy organization at the New York University School of Law. “Now, more than ever, your voting rights depend on where you live. What we’ve seen this year is half the country going in one direction and the other half going the other direction.”TechNet, the internet company lobbying group, has fought local proposals in dozens of states. The industry’s executives argue that variations in state legislation create a confusing patchwork of rules for companies and consumers. Instead, companies have highlighted their own enforcement of disinformation and other harmful content.“These decisions are made as consistently as possible,” said David Edmonson, the group’s vice president for state policy and government relations.For many politicians the issue has become a powerful cudgel against opponents, with each side accusing the other of spreading lies, and both groups criticizing the social media giants. Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has raised campaign funds off his vow to press ahead with his fight against what he has called the “authoritarian companies” that have sought to mute conservative voices. In Ohio, J.D. Vance, the memoirist and Republican nominee for Senate, railed against social media giants, saying they stifled news about the foreign business dealings of Hunter Biden, the president’s son.In Missouri, Vicky Hartzler, a former congresswoman running for the Republican nomination for Senate, released a television ad criticizing Twitter for suspending her personal account after she posted remarks about transgender athletes. “They want to cancel you,” she said in the ad, defending her remarks as “what God intended.”OnMessage, a polling firm that counts the National Republican Senatorial Committee as a client, reported that 80 percent of primary voters surveyed in 2021 said they believed that technology companies were too powerful and needed to be held accountable. Six years earlier, only 20 percent said so. “Voters have a palpable fear of cancel culture and how tech is censoring political views.” said Chris Hartline, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Florida Republican, has raised campaign funds off his vow to press ahead with his fight against what he has called “authoritarian companies.”Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesIn blue states, Democrats have focused more directly on the harm disinformation inflicts on society, including through false claims about elections or Covid and through racist or antisemitic material that has motivated violent attacks like the massacre at a supermarket in Buffalo in May.Connecticut plans to spend nearly $2 million on marketing to share factual information about voting and to create a position for an expert to root out misinformation narratives about voting before they go viral. A similar effort to create a disinformation board at the Department of Homeland Security provoked a political fury before its work was suspended in May pending an internal review.In California, the State Senate is moving forward with legislation that would require social media companies to disclose their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, extremism, harassment and foreign political interference. (The legislation would not compel them to restrict content.) Another bill would allow civil lawsuits against large social media platforms like TikTok and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram if their products were proven to have addicted children.“All of these different challenges that we’re facing have a common thread, and the common thread is the power of social media to amplify really problematic content,” said Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel of California, a Democrat, who sponsored the legislation to require greater transparency from social media platforms. “That has significant consequences both online and in physical spaces.”It seems unlikely that the flurry of legislative activity will have a significant impact before this fall’s elections; social media companies will have no single response acceptable to both sides when accusations of disinformation inevitably arise.“Any election cycle brings intense new content challenges for platforms, but the November midterms seem likely to be particularly explosive,” said Matt Perault, a director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina. “With abortion, guns, democratic participation at the forefront of voters’ minds, platforms will face intense challenges in moderating speech. It’s likely that neither side will be satisfied by the decisions platforms make.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      As Japan Votes, Abe’s Party Hopes His Legacy Is on the Ballot

      by

      Many of Shinzo Abe’s goals are central to the Liberal Democrats’ platform, and party members hoped the slain ex-leader’s memory would inspire sympathy votes on Sunday.TOKYO — When Shinzo Abe was gunned down at a campaign stop on Friday, he was no longer the leader of Japan, nor of its governing party. But as Japanese voters went to the polls on Sunday, Mr. Abe, the country’s longest-serving prime minister, was still a guiding political force, shaping their choices at the ballot box and his party’s vision for the future.“I have the responsibility to take over the ideas of former Prime Minister Abe,” the current prime minister, Fumio Kishida, told a crowd west of Tokyo on Saturday, the day after Mr. Abe’s killing, as he campaigned for their party’s candidates for the Upper House of Parliament.Many of Mr. Abe’s goals, like bolstering military spending and revising Japan’s pacifist Constitution, are still central to the Liberal Democratic Party’s platform. And party leaders hoped that drawing on his memory would give them more power to enact those ideas.Even before the assassination, the Liberal Democrats, along with Komeito, their longtime partner in the governing coalition, had been expected to win a majority of the seats up for grabs in the Upper House on Sunday. If Mr. Abe’s death results in the additional sympathy votes that some analysts expect, the coalition could gain a two-thirds supermajority in Parliament.Technically, at least, that would give it the power to achieve Mr. Abe’s most cherished goal: amending the clause in the Constitution imposed by postwar American occupiers that renounces war, and thus opening the door for Japan to become a military power capable of global leadership.Hours after former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was fatally shot in Nara, Japan, people left flowers at the site of the attack.Philip Fong/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMuch stands in the way of that goal — not least that it has long been unpopular with the Japanese public. And with inflation pressures mounting, the yen weakening and coronavirus infections again on the rise, changing the Constitution could be a harder sell than ever.“I’m interested in prices, wages, daily life, medical services and child care,” said Risako Sakaguchi, 29, who cast her votes for Liberal Democratic candidates at a polling station in Saitama, a suburb of Tokyo.Given such fundamental concerns, “constitutional revision is a kind of luxury good,” said Tobias Harris, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who oversees work on Asia.“It’s the kind of thing where if there’s nothing else going on, maybe you can focus on this,” Mr. Harris said. “But given that attention being spent on constitutional revision is attention not being paid to other stuff, there is going to be a penalty for it, especially when people are so concerned about household issues.”More on the Assassination of Shinzo AbeAn Influential Figure: Shinzo Abe, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, was one of the most transformational politicians in the country’s post-World War II history.Japan’s Gun Laws: Mr. Abe’s assassination may look like a rebuke of the country’s stringent gun laws. But a closer look at what happened actually demonstrates their effectiveness. Reactions: People in Japan, where violent crime is rare, were rattled by the assassination. Mr. Abe’s death also prompted an outpouring of mournful statements from world leaders.Mr. Abe, who was in office for nearly eight years (in addition to a brief, earlier stint as prime minister), left a legacy that went well beyond his hopes of revising the Constitution.Even after Japan fell behind China in world economic rankings, he helped extend its influence by holding a multinational trade agreement together after President Donald J. Trump pulled the United States out of it. At home, he helped bring the economy back from years of doldrums. Even if his economic policies never delivered as much as he promised, he gained international recognition for the program he called “Abenomics.”After he left office, Mr. Abe’s public statements resonated well beyond those of most former prime ministers. When he suggested that it was time for Japan to establish a nuclear sharing agreement with the United States, media outlets assumed the Liberal Democrats were considering a break with the longtime taboo against even discussing the possibility of a Japanese nuclear arsenal.For Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, the sudden loss of Mr. Abe may present opportunities as well as perils. Pool photo by Yoshikazu TsunoWithin the party, he was a kingmaker, often referred to as a “shadow shogun.” Mr. Kishida owes his position to Mr. Abe, who directed his supporters to throw their weight behind him after Mr. Abe’s first choice, Sanae Takaichi, lost a first-round ballot in the party leadership contest.Campaigning for Liberal Democrats over the last two weeks, Mr. Abe’s enduring influence was on display, drawing crowds as far north as Hokkaido and as far south as Fukuoka. His fatal visit to Nara, Japan’s old capital, was his second in support of Kei Sato, 43, a junior member of the party.For Mr. Kishida, the sudden loss of Mr. Abe may present opportunities as well as perils. He could consolidate power after the election, as he is not legally required to call another one for three years. Politicians in Japan often refer to this interval as the “golden period.”But history suggests the odds may be against him. Since the end of World War II, powerful prime ministers have typically been followed by a revolving door of forgettable faces, said Carol Gluck, a professor of history and specialist in modern Japan at Columbia University. Mr. Kishida is the second person to hold the job since Mr. Abe resigned in 2020; his predecessor, Yoshihide Suga, lasted just a year.“There’s a whole lot of prime ministers, if you add them up between 1945 and now, who did not make a mark,” Professor Gluck said.Privately, Mr. Kishida may feel some relief that he will no longer have to answer to Mr. Abe. But others in the party are sure to maneuver to fill the power vacuum.Mr. Abe, center, campaigning in Yokohama for a Liberal Democratic candidate on Wednesday.Yoshikazu Tsuno/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Abe led the largest, and most right-leaning, party faction, and he had not anointed a successor. Infighting could unsettle the party and make it more difficult for Mr. Kishida to get policies enacted.“It would have been much more predictable if Abe was still a big influence,” said Koichi Nakano, a professor of politics at Sophia University.Party power squabbles aside, the bigger question may be whether Mr. Kishida ultimately has his own vision.He once cast himself as a liberal-leaning, dovish member of the party. But driven by the war in Ukraine and increasing threats from North Korea and China, Mr. Kishida has followed Mr. Abe in calling for increased military spending and weapons that can strike missile launch sites in enemy territory.Without Mr. Abe as a driving force, though, some analysts wonder if Mr. Kishida will be able to deliver on that national security agenda.“I think Japan will lose our momentum to strengthen our defense,” said Lully Miura, a political scientist and head of the Yamaneko Research Institute in Tokyo. “We need a visible figure who can support the strong security and appeal to the public.”At the peak of his power, Mr. Abe himself was unable to push through the constitutional revisions he so badly wanted. In 2016, he presided over a Parliament in which his governing coalition had the required two-thirds supermajority. But tensions within the coalition, along with concern that the public — which must ultimately ratify any constitutional amendment — would not go along, thwarted his hopes. Changing the Constitution could be even further out of reach now, given multiple crises around the world and at home.Campaign posters outside a Tokyo polling station on Sunday. Kimimasa Mayama/EPA, via ShutterstockThe war in Ukraine has worsened supply chain problems and driven up the prices of oil and other commodities, raising fears of energy shortages in Japan. Coronavirus infections, until recently under control, have started rising again. And in the longer term, an aging population and falling birthrate raise the prospect of labor shortages and problems with caregiving.Mr. Kishida has offered no all-encompassing program to address such challenges. When running for the party leadership, he spoke of a “new capitalism,” but never spelt out what that meant, other than vague rhetoric about reducing inequality.“Kishida could get things done if there are things that he wants to get done,” said Nick Kapur, a historian of modern Japan at Rutgers University. “He has some popularity and he’s going to have a majority, but as we know, there are so many economic headwinds for everyone in the world — dealing with inflation and an emerging markets debt crisis and the war in Ukraine — and maybe that would damage any leader at some point.”Interest in politics has long been low in Japan, where the Liberal Democrats have been in power for virtually all of the postwar period — largely because of ineffective opposition parties, many analysts say. Early indications on Sunday were that turnout would be low, despite the party’s hopes for a surge in sympathy votes.Ayumi Sekizawa, 31, who works for a real estate company in Tokyo, said he had voted for the Liberal Democrats in part to show his support after Mr. Abe’s death. But he said he usually voted for them because there were “no other good parties.”He said that given the aggressive behavior of Russia, China and North Korea, he agreed that Japan needed to improve its defense capabilities.But his main concerns were closer to home. “I’m interested in the economy,” he said. “Wages should be raised, otherwise, virtually, our living standard is declining.”Makiko Inoue More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Next Time Trump Tries to Steal an Election, He Won’t Need a Mob

      by

      Last week, the Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments in Moore v. Harper, a challenge to North Carolina’s new congressional map.The long and short of the case is that North Carolina Republicans proposed a gerrymander so egregious that the state Supreme Court ruled that it violated the state’s Constitution. Republicans sought to restore the legislative map, citing the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which asserts that state legislatures have almost absolute power to set their own rules for federal elections. Once passed into law, then, those rules cannot be overturned — or even reviewed — by state courts.A Republican victory at the Supreme Court would, according to the election law expert Rick Hasen, “radically alter the power of state courts to rein in state legislatures that violate voting rights in federal elections. It could essentially neuter the ability of state courts to protect voters under provisions of state constitutions against infringement of their rights.”This radical interpretation of the Elections Clause of the Constitution also extends to the Presidential Electors Clause, such that during a presidential election year, state legislatures could allocate Electoral College votes in any way they see fit, at any point in the process. As I argued earlier this year, we could see Republican-led states pass laws that would allow them to send alternative slates of electors, overruling the will of the voters and doing legally what Donald Trump and his conspirators pressured Republicans in Arizona and Georgia to do illegally. Under the independent state legislature doctrine, the next time Trump tries to overturn the results of an election he lost, he won’t need a mob.There are many problems with this doctrine beyond the outcomes it was engineered to produce. Some are logical — the theory seems to suggest that state legislatures are somehow separate and apart from state constitutions — and some are historical. And among the historical problems is the fact that Americans have never really wanted to entrust their state legislatures with the kind of sweeping electoral powers that this theory would confer.For most of the first 50 years of presidential elections, there was no uniform method for the allocation of electors. In the first truly competitive race for president, the election of 1800, two states used a winner-take-all system where voters cast ballots to pick their electors directly, three states used a system where electors were chosen on a district-by-district basis, 10 states used a system where the legislature simply chose the electors, and one state, Tennessee, used a combination of methods.Methods changed from election to election depending on partisan advantage. Virginia moved from the district system in 1796 to the winner-take-all “general ticket” in 1800 to ensure total support for Thomas Jefferson in his contest against John Adams. In retaliation, Adams’s home state of Massachusetts abandoned district elections for legislative selection, to ensure that he would get all of its electors.This kind of manipulation continued until the mid-1830s, when every state save South Carolina adopted the “general ticket.” (South Carolina would not allow voters to directly choose electors until after the Civil War.)Beginning in 1812, however, you can start to see the public and its elected officials turn against this use of state legislative power.Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party was still in power. James Madison, his longtime friend and political ally, was president. But he, and the war he was now fighting, were unpopular.Most members of Congress had backed Madison’s call for war with Great Britain. But it was a partisan vote with most Republicans in favor and every Federalist opposed.The reasons for war were straightforward. The “conduct of her government,” said Madison in his message to Congress requesting a declaration of war, “presents a series of acts hostile to the United States as an independent and neutral nation.” Among those acts were impressment of American seaman (“thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public law and of their national flag, have been torn from their country”) and attacks on American commerce (“British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating the rights and the peace of our coasts.”).In fighting Britain, the administration and its allies hoped to pressure the crown into a more favorable settlement on these maritime issues. They also hoped to conquer Canada and shatter British influence in the parts of North America where it allied with Native tribes to harass American settlers and stymie American expansion.Those hopes crashed into reality, however, as an untrained and inexperienced American militia flailed against British regulars. And as the summer wore on, bringing him closer and closer to the next presidential election, Madison faced defeat abroad and division at home. In New England especially, his Federalist opponents used their hold on local and state offices to obstruct the war effort.“In Hartford,” writes the historian Donald Hickey in “The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict,” “Federalists sought to end loud demonstrations by army recruiters by adopting a pair of city ordinances that restricted public music and parades.” In Boston, “the Massachusetts legislature threatened to sequester federal tax money if militia arms due to the state under an 1808 law were not delivered.”Fearing defeat in the presidential race as a result of this anger and discontent over the war, Republicans did everything they could to secure Madison’s victory. The historian Alexander Keyssar details these shenanigans in the book “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?” He notes that,In North Carolina, which had utilized a district system since 1796, the legislature announced that it would choose electors by itself: its majority feared that Madison might lose the state to DeWitt Clinton, who ran with the support of both Federalists and dissident Republicans.On the other side, “the Federalist legislature in New Jersey announced, just days before the election, that it was canceling the scheduled balloting and appointing electors of its own.” And in Massachusetts, the Republican-led senate and Federalist-led lower house could not agree on a method for choosing electors. “In the end,” notes Keyssar, “an extra legislative session had to be convened to save the state from losing its electoral votes altogether.”Madison was re-elected, but according to Keyssar, the attempt on both sides to manipulate the outcome “ignited firestorms of protest and recrimination.” A number of lawmakers would try, in the immediate aftermath and the years that followed, to amend the Constitution to end legislative selection of electors and mandate district-based elections for the Electoral College.District elections, according to one supportive congressman, were best because they fit the “maxim that all legitimate power is derived from the people” and because they would reduce the chance that “a man may be elected to the first office of the nation by a minority of votes of the people.”This concern for democracy (or “popular government”) was a big part of the case for reform. For Senator Mahlon Dickerson of New Jersey, allowing legislators to choose electors without giving voters a say was “the worst possible system” as it “usurped” power from the people and departed from “the spirit if not from the letter of the Constitution.”Even at this early juncture in our nation’s history, many Americans believed in democratic participation and sought to make the institutions of the Republic more receptive to the voice of the people. One supporter of district elections, Representative James Strudwick Smith of North Carolina, put it simply: “You will bring the election near to the people, and, consequently you will make them place more value on the elective franchise, which is all-important in a republican form of Government.”There is a somewhat common view that the counter-majoritarianism of the American system is acceptable because the United States is a “Republic, not a democracy.” That notion lurks behind the idea of the “independent state legislature,” which would empower partisans to limit the right of the people to choose their leaders in a direct and democratic manner.But from the start, Americans have rejected the idea that their system is somehow opposed to more and greater democracy. When institutions seemed to subvert democratic practice, the voters and their representatives pushed back, demanding a government more responsive to their interests, desires and republican aspirations. It is not for nothing that the men who claimed Jefferson as their political and ideological forefather labeled their party “The Democracy.”As Americans recognized then, and as they should recognize now, the Constitution is not a charter for states or state legislatures, it is a charter for people, for our rights and for our right to self-government.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

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      For Boris Johnson, a Chaotic Reign Ends With a Chaotic Exit

      by

      The risk-taking bravado of Britain’s colorful prime minister was not enough to compensate for his shortcomings, or overcome a catastrophic loss of party support.LONDON — The end, when it finally came, was just as chaotic, messy and jaw-dropping as every other chapter of Boris Johnson’s political career.Holed up in Downing Street on Wednesday night, the prime minister faced an open rebellion of his cabinet, a catastrophic loss of support in his Conservative Party and a wholesale exodus of ministers, which threatened to leave significant parts of the British government without functioning leadership.Yet far from surrendering, Mr. Johnson’s aides put out word that he would continue to fight. It looked like a last roll of the dice by one of the great gamblers in British politics. His brazen refusal to bow to reality invited comparisons to Donald J. Trump’s defiance in the chaotic days after he lost the 2020 presidential election.The British prime minister stepped down as Conservative Party leader after recent scandals prompted a wave of resignations from his top officials. He plans to stay on as prime minister until a successor is in place.Henry Nicholls/ReutersBy Thursday morning, however, political gravity had finally reasserted itself. For one of the few times in his career, Mr. Johnson was unable to bend the narrative to his advantage through the sheer force of his personality.At midday, the prime minister went to a lectern in front of 10 Downing Street to announce he was relinquishing the leadership of a party that no longer supported him, and giving up a job he had pursued for much of his adult life.“I want to tell you how sorry I am to be giving up the best job in the world,” Mr. Johnson said. Then, defusing the solemnity of the moment with a wry line from the pool halls of America, he added, “Them’s the breaks.”A crowd gathered outside Downing Street on Thursday morning to hear Mr. Johnson’s statement.Henry Nicholls/ReutersAs the political post-mortems on Mr. Johnson are written, the tumultuous events of the last week may come to encapsulate his career — one defined by a gleeful disregard for the rules, a shrewd instinct for public opinion, an elastic approach to ethics and a Falstaffian appetite for the cut-and-thrust of politics.“Most prime ministers would have gotten the message sooner,” said Andrew Gimson, one of Mr. Johnson’s biographers. “The element of exaggeration, of turning up the volume, is very characteristic of his style.”Mr. Gimson once likened Mr. Johnson to Admiral Nelson, the 18th-century naval hero who vanquished Napoleon in the Battle of Trafalgar. “Nelson said the boldest measures are the safest,” he said.In the end, however, Mr. Johnson’s risk-taking bravado was not enough to compensate for his shortcomings. He engaged in behavior that critics said revealed a sense of entitlement and a belief that the rules did not apply to him, his staff or his loyalists. Critics accused him of being disorganized, ideologically and administratively.After leading Britain out of the European Union in 2020, the prime minister did not have much of a plan for what to do next. He quickly became hostage to events, lurching from crisis to crisis as the coronavirus pandemic engulfed Britain. A pattern of scandals, which followed him throughout his career, soon overtook Downing Street.Mr. Johnson had long thrived by thumbing his nose at political convention. His disheveled crop of blonde hair seemed a metaphor for a messy personal and professional life, which some British voters savored while others merely tolerated it.Mr. Johnson preparing to appear on television in 2019. A journalist-turned-politician, he was able to fuse the forces of celebrity culture with an opportunistic, ideologically flexible approach to the issues.Stefan Rousseau/Press Association, via Associated PressBut Mr. Johnson’s lack of truthfulness finally caught up with him. His constantly shifting accounts of his conduct — whether in attending illicit parties at Downing Street during lockdowns, attempting to use a Tory Party donor to finance the costly refurbishment of his apartment, or promoting a Conservative lawmaker with a history of sexual misconduct allegations against him — finally exhausted the patience of his party and many voters.Mr. Johnson’s role in campaigning to leave the European Union, then carrying out Brexit and then seeing Britain through the pandemic, will guarantee him a place in the ranks of significant British prime ministers. Beyond that, he leaves behind a checkered policy legacy, and he never escaped suspicions that his agenda was driven not by ideological conviction but by the cynical calculation of what political advantages he could extract from it.In the end he may be most remembered for his confounding mix of strengths and weaknesses.From the start, Mr. Johnson represented something new in British politics. A journalist-turned-politician, he was able to fuse the forces of celebrity culture with an opportunistic, ideologically flexible approach to the issues. To most Britons, he was simply “Boris,” a first-name familiarity enjoyed by no other British politician.With his rumpled suits and untucked shirts, Mr. Johnson affected a louche, upper-class insouciance that somehow also connected with working-class voters. His antics as the mayor of London — he once famously dangled from a zip line above photographers, waving a pair of Union Jacks — turned him into a clown prince.But all the tomfoolery — aside from drawing attention to himself — also helped make him a serious electoral contender. With Britain caught up in an anguished debate over its future in the European Union, Mr. Johnson latched on to an issue that would propel him to the top of the Conservative Party. First, of course, he famously dithered about which side of the Brexit debate to embrace — leave or remain — drafting newspaper columns that made the case for both.With his rumpled suits and untucked shirts, Mr. Johnson affected a louche, upper-class insouciance that somehow also connected with working-class voters.Pool photo by Clemens BilanOnce he had thrown in his lot with “Vote Leave,” Mr. Johnson became an energetic campaigner. He helped win the 2016 referendum against European Union membership, used the issue to drive out the woman who became prime minister in its aftermath, Theresa May, and rode a promise to “Get Brexit Done” to a thrashing of the Labour Party in the 2019 general election.That victory, which awarded the Conservative Party its largest majority since 1987, emboldened Mr. Johnson when his standing collapsed under the weight of serial ethical scandals. He invoked his “colossal mandate” as a response to those who said he should step down, saying he owed it to his 14 million voters to go on.Unlike in the United States, however, Mr. Johnson governs in a parliamentary, not a presidential, system. Those 14 million people voted for the Conservative Party, not for Mr. Johnson, who merely served as the party’s leader, at the pleasure of its lawmakers. When they withdraw that support, the leader is replaced.At a parliamentary committee hearing on Wednesday, Mr. Johnson pointedly declined to rule out trying to call an early general election — in effect, bypassing the Conservative Party to throw his fate back to the voters.That evening, a delegation of cabinet ministers and party officials traveled to Downing Street to appeal to Mr. Johnson to step down. He rejected their entreaties and instead fired one of his most senior ministers and allies, Michael Gove, who had been among those warning him that his time was up.The palace intrigue, combined with Mr. Johnson’s initial refusal to accept his situation, drew comparisons to Mr. Trump.“We have this habit in Britain of following American politics, a couple of years later,” said Jonathan Powell, who served as chief of staff to a Labour prime minister, Tony Blair. “We have ended up with a poor man’s Trump, in the form of Johnson.”The United States, Mr. Powell said, was still living with the aftereffects of Mr. Trump’s presidency. “In Britain, because our system is different, we should be in a position to heal more quickly,” he said. More

    • 25 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Internal Inconsistencies

      by

      The people who claim widespread election fraud have made little effort to put together a logical argument.More than 100 Republican nominees for statewide office or Congress this year have falsely claimed that election fraud helped defeat Donald Trump in 2020. Almost 150 members of Congress — more than half of the Republicans serving there — went so far as to vote to overturn the 2020 election result.These claims of election fraud have become the mainstream Republican position. In some places, winning a nomination virtually requires making such statements. In other places, the claims appear to carry little political cost, at least in the primaries. And very few elected Republicans have been willing to denounce the falsehoods.Given the prominence of the issue, it’s jarring to see how little effort its proponents have put into making an argument on behalf of their claims. They have offered no good evidence, because there is not any. They have also failed to offer even a logically consistent argument. Consider:If anything, the rare examples of cheating from 2020 tend to involve Trump supporters. Prosecutors charged three registered Republicans living at The Villages, a Florida retirement community, with voting more than once in the presidential election. One of them has since pleaded guilty: he both voted in Florida and cast an absentee ballot in Michigan.Trump and his allies have never explained how other Republicans could have done so well if fraud were widespread. In the 2020 House elections, Republicans gained 14 seats. In the Senate, Democrats did win a 50-50 split, but the party lost races in Maine, Montana and North Carolina that it had hoped to win. In the 2021 elections, Republicans did well again, winning the governor’s race in Virginia. It’s hardly a picture consistent with Democratic election rigging.During the 2022 primaries, most Republican candidates have accepted the results without claiming fraud. That’s been true even of candidates who lost their races, as my colleagues Reid Epstein and Nick Corasaniti have reported. Examples include Representative Madison Cawthorn in North Carolina; Representative Mo Brooks in the Senate primary in Alabama; and two Trump-backed candidates in Georgia. When Trump supporters lose to other Republicans, they generally accept defeat.Loyalty, not logicOf course, the claims of voter fraud are not going away. If Trump runs again, he will probably allege cheating in any election that he loses. At least some other Republicans now seem likely to do the same, perhaps in response to close or unexpected losses in 2022.A “Stop the Steal” protester in 2020.Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesBut the lack of any substantive argument to back up these claims suggests that even some of the people making them may not believe them. The claims have instead become a way for many Republicans to show loyalty to their party and to signal that they consider Democrats to be inherently illegitimate holders of power.Sometimes, these signals are tinged with racism, as Brandon Tensley of CNN has noted: The fraud claims often involve cities with heavily Black or Latino populations, like Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Rudy Giuliani, for example, alleged — without any evidence — that residents of Camden, N.J. (roughly 90 percent of whom are Black or Latino) illegally vote in Philadelphia (which, unlike Camden, is in a swing state). In Alabama, Brooks has said fraud occurs largely in Birmingham and other heavily Democratic cities.The spread of such lies has left many historians and political scientists anxious about the future of American democracy. There is no shortage of subjects on which Democrats and Republicans can reasonably — even passionately or angrily — disagree: How much should the country restrict abortion? What about gun use? Or immigration? How high should taxes or government benefits be?All those issues are valid matters of debate in a democracy. When one side loses a struggle, it can look for ways to regroup and win the next one.But a concerted campaign to delegitimize political opponents — through falsehoods and without much of an attempt at logical argument — is something quite different. It’s an attempt not to win a democratic contest but to avoid one.For moreThe Washington Post has compiled a list of the current Republican nominees who support Trump’s false election claims, and The Times has listed the congressional Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 election.In coming primaries in Arizona and Michigan, candidates who have made false fraud claims are trying to win the Republican nomination to become secretary of state, overseeing elections.THE LATEST NEWSBritainBoris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, at Downing Street yesterday.John Sibley/ReutersBoris Johnson is stepping down. He’s planning to serve as prime minister until the fall.His resignation comes after days of political drama and calls for him to quit from within his Conservative Party. More than 50 government ministers or aides had left.It’s unclear who will succeed Johnson. The Conservative Party will start a leadership contest that will determine who will be the next prime minister.War in UkraineThe main train station in Lviv in April.Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York TimesAbout six million Ukrainians are displaced within the country and nearly five million others have fled to other Europe countries.President Biden told the wife of Brittney Griner, the basketball star detained in Russia, that the U.S. would pursue “every avenue” to bring the player home.PoliticsBiden has tried to remain above the partisan fray. Some Democrats wish he were more of a fighter, The Times’s Michael Shear writes.James Comey and Andrew McCabe, former F.B.I. officials who clashed with Trump, were both subjected to rare, intensive I.R.S. audits.The Jan 6. committee will interview the former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who fought Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Joe Rogan said that he had refused to have Trump on his podcast, calling him “an existential threat to democracy.”Other Big StoriesFed officials are planning another big interest rate increase, even as the economy shows some signs of cooling.The Highland Park shooter had been able to legally buy weapons, even after police encounters and despite Illinois’s relatively strict laws.The glaciers of the Alps are buckling under the summer heat that is now common in Europe.A California jury found a man guilty of murder in the 2019 shooting of the rapper Nipsey Hussle.A judge sentenced Jerry Harris, a star of the Netflix documentary “Cheer,” to 12 years in prison for sex crimes involving minors.An explosion destroyed part of the Georgia Guidestones, a mysterious monument promoted as “America’s Stonehenge.”OpinionsWhat’s an ectopic pregnancy? What does Plan B do? Take Times Opinion’s Post-Roe sex ed quiz.Medical debt burdens Americans mostly because they’re underinsured rather than uninsured, Aaron Carroll argues.MORNING READSArt: She paid $90,000 for a Marc Chagall painting. Now a French panel wants to destroy it.Wimbledon: Singles matches get attention, but doubles are “a joy to play.”Roommates: A gecko and a possum family, living together in harmony.A Times classic: The science of veganism.Advice from Wirecutter: Packing cubes for smarter traveling.Lives Lived: Willie Lee Morrow was a barber in San Diego when a friend brought him a gift from Nigeria: a wooden comb meant to tease out curly hair. Morrow created what came to be known as the Afro pick. Morrow died at 82.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETIC Two teams can shake up college football: Rivals Oregon and Washington can dramatically shift the future for two major conferences. Meanwhile, all eyes remain on what Notre Dame is about to do. Tension is building as the college football landscape shifts.Are N.H.L. players being held in Russia? A Russian star appears in jeopardy of not being able to return to the United States. This scenario has been a concern for league executives this off-season.An N.B.A. player faces NFT scrutiny: A veteran player co-founded an NFT community, but now many investors feel they have been swindled.For access to all Athletic articles, subscribe to New York Times All Access or Home Delivery.ARTS AND IDEAS Trevor Rainbolt identifies countries in seconds.Jack Bool for The New York TimesGen Z geographyThe premise of the online game GeoGuessr is simple: You’re dropped somewhere in the world, seen through Google’s Street View, and must guess where you are. Often that means clicking to move through the landscape and scanning for clues.Trevor Rainbolt, 23, has found online fame posting videos in which he locates himself in seconds, The Times’s Kellen Browning writes. His geography skills verge on wizardry — he can identify a country by the color of its soil — and his highlights regularly get millions of views on TikTok.“Candidly, I haven’t had any social life for the past year,” Rainbolt said. “But it’s worth it, because it’s so fun and I enjoy learning.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York TimesRoast peaches with boneless chicken thighs in the oven, and let them meld with those flavorful drippings.What to WatchIn the movie “Hello, Goodbye and Everything in Between,” an adaptation of a young adult novel, two high school seniors agree to break up in a year.What to ReadThese books will guide you through Berlin.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was chutzpah. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Our world (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. The word “whackadoodle” appeared in The Times for the first time, in an article about the Georgia Guidestones.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about an anti-abortion campaigner. On “First Person,” a gay Ukrainian soldier. On the Modern Love podcast, a nanny’s secret world.Matthew Cullen, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      One of the Few Potential Bright Spots for Democrats in 2022: The Senate

      by

      Democrats hope to portray Republican Senate candidates in some of the most competitive midterm races as too far outside the mainstream. For now, it seems to be working.When asked to share their candid thoughts about the Democrats’ chances of hanging onto their House majority in the coming election, party strategists often use words that cannot be printed in a family newsletter.But a brighter picture is coming together for Democrats on the Senate side. There, Republicans are assembling what one top strategist laughingly described as an “island of misfit toys” — a motley collection of candidates the Democratic Party hopes to portray as out of the mainstream on policy, personally compromised and too cozy with Donald Trump.These vulnerabilities have led to a rough few weeks for Republican Senate candidates in several of the most competitive races:Arizona: Blake Masters, a venture capitalist who secured Trump’s endorsement and is leading the polls in the Republican primary, has been criticized for saying that “Black people, frankly” are responsible for most of the gun violence in the U.S. Other Republicans have attacked him for past comments supporting “unrestricted immigration.”Georgia: Herschel Walker, the G.O.P. nominee facing Senator Raphael Warnock, acknowledged being the parent of three previously undisclosed children. Walker regularly inveighs against absentee fathers.Pennsylvania: Dr. Mehmet Oz, who lived in New Jersey before announcing his Senate run, risks looking inauthentic. Oz recently misspelled the name of his new hometown on an official document.Nevada: Adam Laxalt, a former state attorney general, said at a pancake breakfast last month that “Roe v. Wade was always a joke.” That’s an unpopular stance in socially liberal Nevada, where 63 percent of adults say abortion should be mostly legal.Wisconsin: Senator Ron Johnson made a cameo in the Jan. 6 hearings when it emerged that, on the day of the attack, he wanted to hand-deliver a fraudulent list of electors to former Vice President Mike Pence.Republicans counter with some politically potent arguments of their own, blaming Democrats for rising prices and saying that they have veered too far left for mainstream voters.In Pennsylvania, for instance, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate nominee, supports universal health care, federal marijuana legalization and criminal justice reform. Republicans have been combing through his record and his past comments to depict him as similar to Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist.Candidate vs. candidateOne factor working in the Democrats’ favor is the fact that only a third of the Senate is up for re-election, and many races are in states that favor Democrats.Another is the fact that Senate races can be more distinct than House races, influenced less by national trends and more by candidates’ personalities. The ad budgets in Senate races can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, giving candidates a chance to define themselves and their opponents.Democrats are leaning heavily on personality-driven campaigns, promoting Senator Mark Kelly in Arizona as a moderate, friendly former astronaut and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada as a fighter for abortion rights, retail workers and families.“Senate campaigns are candidate-versus-candidate battles,” said David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Democrats’ Senate campaign arm. “And while Democratic incumbents and candidates have developed their own brands, Republicans have put forward deeply, deeply flawed candidates.” Bergstein isn’t objective, but that analysis has some truth to it.There are about four months until Election Day, an eternity in modern American politics. As we’ve seen from the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling and from the explosive allegations that emerged in the latest testimony against Trump, the political environment can shift quickly.If the election were held today, polls suggest that Democrats would be narrowly favored to retain Senate control. Republican elites are also terrified that voters might nominate Eric Greitens, the scandal-ridden former governor, for Missouri’s open Senate seat, jeopardizing a seat that would otherwise be safe.But the election, of course, is not being held today, and polls are fallible, as we saw in 2020. So there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about the outcome. Biden’s approval rating remains low, and inflation is the top issue on voters’ minds — not the foibles of individual candidates.For now, Democrats are pretty pleased with themselves for making lemonade out of a decidedly sour political environment.We want to hear from you.Tell us about your experience with this newsletter by answering this short survey.What to readWorried about inflation and dissatisfied with President Biden, many moderate women have been drifting away from Democrats, Katie Glueck writes. Now the party hopes the fight for abortion rights will drive them back. More on the fallout from Roe’s reversal here.Seven Trump advisers and allies, including Rudy Giuliani and Senator Lindsey Graham, were subpoenaed on Tuesday in the ongoing criminal investigation in Georgia of election interference, according to Danny Hakim — a sign that the probe has ensnared a widening circle of Trump’s associates.Stuart A. Thompson, who covers misinformation and disinformation for The New York Times, analyzed hundreds of hours of conservative radio, where hosts have been stoking conspiracy theories accusing Democrats of planning to steal the next presidential election.As signs grow that Trump may be planning to announce another presidential run sooner than many expected, Peter Baker examines what the Jan. 6 hearings are revealing about the once and future candidate’s state of mind.pulseThe Supreme Court is among several institutions that people have lost confidence in, according to a new Gallup poll.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesInstitutional confidence continues a downward spiralHere’s a blinking warning light for America’s centers of power: Confidence in U.S. institutions has plunged to new depths over the last year, according to a survey released on Monday by Gallup.The steepest declines, Gallup found, were for the Supreme Court and the presidency. Confidence in the court has declined by 11 percentage points since 2021, while confidence in the presidency has dropped by 15 percentage points.Gallup tracks the public’s views of 16 institutions in an annual survey. Confidence in the three branches of the federal government has reached all-time lows. Congress rounds out the bottom, with just 7 percent espousing a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the legislative branch.On the other end of the spectrum, Americans still express high levels of confidence in two institutions in particular: small business and the military.But of all the institutions Gallup follows, every single one — save organized labor — has gone down in the public’s esteem in the past 12 months.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A Bluer Picture

      by

      The midterm campaigns for the House and the Senate are shaping up quite differently.The midterm polls continue to look dark for Democrats, as we explained in a newsletter last week. Inflation and Covid disruptions, as well as the normal challenges that a president’s party faces in midterms, are weighing on the party. As a result, the Republicans are heavily favored to retake control of the House.But the situation in the Senate looks different, my colleague Blake Hounshell points out.There are 10 potentially competitive Senate races this year, according to the Cook Political Report, and Democrats need to win at least five of them to keep Senate control. Democrats are favored in two of those 10 races (New Hampshire and Colorado) and Cook rates another five (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) as tossups.If Democrats keep the Senate without the House, they still would not be able to pass legislation without Republican support. But Senate control nonetheless matters. It would allow President Biden to appoint judges, Cabinet secretaries and other top officials without any Republican support, because only the Senate needs to confirm nominees.I’m turning over the rest of today’s lead item to Blake, who will preview the campaign for Senate control.When asked to share their candid thoughts about the Democrats’ chances of hanging onto their House majority in the coming election, party strategists often use words that cannot be printed in a family newsletter.But a brighter picture is coming together for Democrats on the Senate side. There, Republicans are assembling what one top strategist laughingly described as an “island of misfit toys” — a motley collection of candidates the Democratic Party hopes to portray as out of the mainstream on policy, personally compromised and too cozy with Donald Trump.These vulnerabilities have led to a rough few weeks for Republican Senate candidates in several of the most competitive races:Arizona: Blake Masters, a venture capitalist who secured Trump’s endorsement and is leading the polls in the Republican primary, has been criticized for saying that “Black people, frankly” are responsible for most of the gun violence in the U.S. Other Republicans have attacked him for past comments supporting “unrestricted immigration.”Georgia: Herschel Walker, the G.O.P. nominee facing Senator Raphael Warnock, acknowledged being the parent of three previously undisclosed children. Walker regularly inveighs against absentee fathers.Pennsylvania: Dr. Mehmet Oz, who lived in New Jersey before announcing his Senate run, risks looking inauthentic. Oz recently misspelled the name of his new hometown on an official document.Nevada: Adam Laxalt, a former state attorney general, said at a pancake breakfast last month that “Roe v. Wade was always a joke.” That’s an unpopular stance in socially liberal Nevada, where 63 percent of adults say abortion should be mostly legal.Wisconsin: Senator Ron Johnson made a cameo in the Jan. 6 hearings when it emerged that, on the day of the attack, he wanted to hand-deliver a fraudulent list of electors to former Vice President Mike Pence.Republicans counter with some politically potent arguments of their own, blaming Democrats for rising prices and saying that they have veered too far left for mainstream voters.In Pennsylvania, for instance, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate nominee, supports universal health care, federal marijuana legalization and criminal justice reform. Republicans have been combing through his record and his past comments to depict him as similar to Bernie Sanders, the self-described Democratic socialist.Candidate vs. candidateOne factor working in the Democrats’ favor is the fact that only a third of the Senate is up for re-election, and many races are in states that favor Democrats.Another is the fact that Senate races can be more distinct than House races, influenced less by national trends and more by candidates’ personalities. The ad budgets in Senate races can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, giving candidates a chance to define themselves and their opponents.Democrats are leaning heavily on personality-driven campaigns, promoting Senator Mark Kelly in Arizona as a moderate, friendly former astronaut and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada as a fighter for abortion rights, retail workers and families.“Senate campaigns are candidate-versus-candidate battles,” said David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Democrats’ Senate campaign arm. “And while Democratic incumbents and candidates have developed their own brands, Republicans have put forward deeply, deeply flawed candidates.” Bergstein isn’t objective, but that analysis has some truth to it.There are about four months until Election Day, an eternity in modern American politics. As we’ve seen from the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling and from the explosive allegations that emerged in the latest testimony against Trump, the political environment can shift quickly.If the election were held today, polls suggests that Democrats would be narrowly favored to retain Senate control. Republican elites are also terrified that voters might nominate Eric Greitens, the scandal-ridden former governor, for Missouri’s open Senate seat, jeopardizing a seat that would otherwise be safe.But the election, of course, is not being held today, and polls are fallible, as we saw in 2020. So there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about the outcome. Biden’s approval rating remains low, and inflation is the top issue on voters’ minds — not the foibles of individual candidates.For now, Democrats are pretty pleased with themselves for making lemonade out of a decidedly sour political environment.More politicsConservative talk radio hosts promote false claims about election fraud, stoking mistrust about the results of the midterms.The U.S. ambassador to Mexico has a cozy relationship with Mexico’s president. Some American officials fear it’s gone too far.Trump has long been able to keep his intentions under wraps, but recent testimony revealed a man willing to do almost anything to hang onto power.Illinois ShootingAfter a mass shooting in Highland Park, Ill., yesterday.Mary Mathis for The New York TimesA gunman killed six people from a rooftop at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, a Chicago suburb.A 22-year-old man is in custody. Here’s what we know.The attack was not the only shooting over a violent holiday weekend.Why does the U.S. have so many mass shootings? Mostly because people have so many guns, as a recent edition of this newsletter explained.AbortionMany moderate women have been drifting away from Democrats. The party hopes that the fight for abortion rights will drive them back.As the U.S. grapples with the Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe v. Wade, a question lurks: Why are the risks of pregnancy rarely discussed?Here’s the latest on which abortion laws are in effect and which are blocked. Other Big Stories“I’m terrified I might be here forever”: The W.N.B.A. star Brittney Griner wrote to Biden to ask for help in being freed from prison in Russia. The U.S. said the bullet that killed the Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was too damaged to trace definitively but probably came from Israeli military lines.Updated Covid vaccines are coming. The shots won’t be available until the fall.OpinionsChristian nationalists gutted abortion rights. American democracy is next, says Katherine Stewart.Americans live in fear of gun violence, and fear is a breeding ground for autocracy, Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan’s daughter, writes.MORNING READSRenovating the tower housing Big Ben took five years.Mary Turner for The New York TimesBong bong bong: Big Ben will soon sound again.The Tour Divide: A 2,700-mile cycling race is now even more extreme.Tennis: When will the Williams sisters and Roger Federer quit? Maybe never.A Times classic: The perils of a dirty sponge.Advice from Wirecutter: Try these cheap sunglasses.Lives Lived: Clifford L. Alexander Jr., who in the 1960s and ’70s helped bring the civil rights movement into the federal government, became the first Black secretary of the Army under Jimmy Carter. Alexander died at 88.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICA programming note: This new sports section is written by the staff of The Athletic.New York baseball dominance: For many teams, July 5 will mean 81 games played, the official halfway point of the M.L.B. regular season. None can top the New York Yankees, a team on pace to surpass some of their greatest seasons ever. Here is how all 30 M.L.B. teams stack up at the midway point. The Yankees have local company.Ronaldo’s next home? That question dominated weekend conversations as the soccer superstar signaled an exit from Manchester United. Could Chelsea be Ronaldo’s next team?Christian Eriksen’s new home: Meanwhile, Manchester United added a player known more for a Euro 2020 scare than his considerable talents.For access to all Athletic articles, subscribe to New York Times All Access or Home Delivery.ARTS AND IDEAS Beer and body slamsCraft beer and wrestling are starting to become a tag team, as crowds around the U.S. sip hazy ales and cheer on the action inside the ring.“Spandex-clad wrestlers with stage names like Manbun Jesus, Rex Lawless and Casanova Valentine performed body slams and leaped off ropes, egging on spectators and occasionally inflicting performative injury with arm twists and traffic barrels,” Joshua M. Bernstein writes in The Times about a recent event in Brooklyn.“It’s like going to the movies, but it’s a real-life performance and you get to drink,” one wrestler said. “What’s better than that?”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Simpson for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Simon Andrews.Soba, Japanese buckwheat noodles, taste great when served cold.World Through a LensA sand storm approaching the Step Pyramid of Djoser.Tanveer BadalA photographer found a new perspective on Egypt’s ancient pyramids.What to ReadIn Katherine J. Chen’s new novel, Joan of Arc wows crowds with feats of strength and breaks bones with her bare hands.GamingNina Freeman infuses her work with a poetic sensibility. Her next game, “Nonno’s Legend,” comes out next month.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was although. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Take it easy (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. The bikini debuted 76 years ago today. Twenty years later, The Times urged women to take the plunge.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about a new gun law. On “The Ezra Klein Show,” Larry Kramer discusses the Supreme Court.Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Macron Adjusts His Cabinet, Seeking a Fresh Start

      by

      The new appointments by President Emmanuel Macron of France are unlikely to help him push his agenda through a fragmented lower house of Parliament.PARIS — President Emmanuel Macron of France lightly shuffled his cabinet on Monday in a bid to jump start his second term, weeks after elections that significantly weakened his parliamentary majority and bolstered his political opponents.Mr. Macron, who has been occupied by international summits and diplomatic efforts over the war in Ukraine, and who has not yet charted a strong domestic course for his second term, is now seeking a fresh start after his alliance of centrist parties lost its absolute majority last month in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of Parliament.After those elections, Mr. Macron had asked Élisabeth Borne, the prime minister, to consult with parliamentary groups to form “a new government of action” that could include representatives from across the political landscape, and Ms. Borne spent much of the past week meeting with party leaders.But the new appointments on Monday were not as sweeping as that might have suggested, and the shuffle contained no major surprises, meaning that the new government will probably not make it easier for Mr. Macron to get his bills passed in France’s fragmented lower house.Mr. Macron, speaking to his newly appointed ministers on Monday for his cabinet’s first meeting, said he wanted a government of “ambition,” capable of building “challenging compromises.” “Our country needs reforms, transformations,” Mr. Macron said, as he blamed mainstream opposition parties for their “unwillingness” to take part in his government. Ms. Borne and many heavyweights who were appointed in May after Mr. Macron’s re-election remained in place, including Bruno Le Maire, who has been in charge of the economy since Mr. Macron was first elected in 2017; Pap Ndiaye, an academic of Senegalese and French descent who is education minister; and Catherine Colonna and Sébastien Lecornu, the ministers for foreign affairs and defense.Olivier Véran, who in May had been nominated minister in charge of relations with Parliament, was appointed government spokesman on Monday. Mr. Véran, a neurologist by training, was health minister at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in Mr. Macron’s first term and was the face for much of the government’s response, making him one of the administration’s most recognizable figures.Olivier Véran, who in May had been nominated minister in charge of relations with Parliament, was appointed government spokesman.Christophe Archambault/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Véran, speaking to reporters before taking up his post on Monday, said that “more than ever, the political context calls for transparency, for dialogue, for renewal” to address the “feeling of disconnection” between French people and their politicians.“Each day, on each bill, we will have to constantly seek majorities, not just with lawmakers with also with a majority of the French,” Mr. Véran said.Mr. Macron had vowed ahead of June’s parliamentary elections that any ministers who were running for a seat would have to resign if they lost. Three were in that situation, including Brigitte Bourguignon, the health minister, who was replaced Monday by François Braun, an emergency doctor and the head of an umbrella organization of France’s emergency departments. Mr. Braun had recently been assigned by the government to find solutions to summer staff shortages that have plagued French hospitals.The new appointments hinted at Mr. Macron’s need to bolster support from his allied centrist parties: the MoDem, a longtime partner of Mr. Macron, and Horizons, a group created by Édouard Philippe, his former prime minister. Six cabinet positions were filled by members of those parties on Monday, up from two previously.But Mr. Macron did not poach any key targets from left or right-wing parties, as he had several times in the past, and he even brought back officials who had been in his cabinet in his first term, leading opponents to suggest that Mr. Macron had a very shallow bench from which to choose.François Braun, an emergency physician, replaced Brigitte Bourguignon as the health minister.Ludovic Marin/Agence France-Presse, via Pool/Afp Via Getty ImagesPierre-Henri Dumont, the deputy secretary general for Les Républicains, Mr. Macron’s right-wing opposition, told the BFMTV news channel on Monday that the new government “looks more like the end of a reign than the start of a new term.”“No one major was poached, there are no big names, even though we were promised a government of national unity,” Mr. Dumont said.Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally party — which won a record number of seats in Parliament last month — said on Twitter that Mr. Macron had “once again ignored the verdict of the ballot box and the French people’s wish for a new policy.”Mr. Macron declined to reappoint Damien Abad, the minister for solidarity and for disabled people, who has faced a growing number of sexual assault and rape allegations since his nomination in May.At least three different women have made accusations against Mr. Abad, who has strenuously denied wrongdoing, and the Paris prosecutor’s office opened an investigation targeting him last week, amid a growing reckoning over sexism and sexual abuse by French political figures.Mr. Abad said at a news conference on Monday that faced with “vile aspersions,” it was preferable for him to step down “so that I may defend myself without hampering the government’s action.”Laurence Boone, the chief economist at the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is the new junior minister in charge of European affairs, replacing Clément Beaune, a key ally of Mr. Macron, who will become the minister in charge of transportation.The cabinet reshuffle came ahead of a general policy speech that Ms. Borne is expected to give before the lower house on Wednesday.Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne had been asked to consult with parliamentary groups to form “a new government of action.” Christophe Petit Tesson/Pool via ReutersThe speech is an important tradition that gives prime ministers an opportunity to set out the new government’s policies and priorities, but it is not automatically followed by a confidence vote. Prime minister have usually sought one anyway to shore up support and give their cabinet a strong mandate, but it was still unclear if Ms. Borne would do so. France Unbowed, the main left-wing opposition party in the National Assembly, has already said it would call for a no-confidence vote against Ms. Borne to try to force her to step down. But such a vote can only succeed if the left, the far-right and the mainstream conservatives vote together, which is far from certain. One of the new government’s first orders of business will be a bill that aims to help the French keep up with inflation by increasing several welfare benefits, capping rising rents, and creating subsidies for poorer households to buy essential food products.Inflation in the eurozone rose to a record 8.6 percent last week, as the fallout of the war in Ukraine and the economic conflict it has set off between Russia and Western Europe continued to drive up energy prices — although France’s inflation rate, at 6.5 percent, is comparatively lower than in other European countries. More