Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Court Ruling on Guns: The Legislature’s Options

      by

      It’s now up to Albany to pass restrictions on gun ownership that would be allowed under the Supreme Court decision invalidating New York’s law.Good morning. It’s Friday. We’ll look at what the Legislature can do now that the Supreme Court has invalidated New York’s concealed-carry gun law. We’ll also look at how changing demographics are reflected in a House race in Manhattan.Michael Reynolds/EPA, via ShutterstockIn procedural terms, the Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s concealed-carry gun law sent the case back to lower courts. In practical terms, the decision sent the issue of gun control and gun violence to lawmakers in Albany, where Gov. Kathy Hochul called the ruling “shocking, absolutely shocking.”She was preparing to sign a school safety bill when the Supreme Court decision was announced and became visibly angry as she described the 6-to-3 ruling, which was built on a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment that is likely to make it harder for states to restrict guns. Hochul said she would call the Legislature back to Albany for a special session, probably next month, and that aides had already prepared draft legislation with new restrictions.She also said the state was considering changing the permitting process to create basic qualifications for gun owners, including training requirements. And she said New York was considering a system where businesses and private property owners could set their own restrictions on firearms.In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams said the decision was “just not rooted in reality” and “has made every single one of us less safe from gun violence.”“There is no place in the nation that this decision affects as much as New York City,” he said.But the question of the day was what the Legislature in Albany could do.“The hardest thing for the Legislature is to calmly write legislation that is not going to please everybody,” said Paul Finkelman, the chancellor and a distinguished professor at Gratz College in Philadelphia, who follows the New York Legislature. “It’s not going to please everyone who says we’ve got to get rid of firearms. That’s not where the world lives today.”He suggested setting an age threshold for gun permits, much like the ones for drivers’ licenses, and taxing firearms, much like gasoline or cigarettes.Vincent Bonventre, a professor at the Albany Law School, said the Legislature could restrict the possession of firearms by categories, putting guns out of the reach of convicted felons or people convicted of misdemeanors involving violence, for example. “It’s going to take some thought” to develop restrictions that would pass muster, “but not that much,” he said.Jonathan Lowy, the chief counsel of the gun control group Brady, has argued that letting more people carry hidden handguns would mean more violent crime — “in other words, more Americans will die,” he wrote in the New York University Law Review last year. On Thursday, the group estimated that more than 28,000 people had died from gun violence since the case was argued before the court last Nov. 3.Among those shot was Zaire Goodman, 21, who survived the May 14 supermarket massacre in Buffalo, N.Y. On Thursday his mother, Zeneta Everhart, said she feared the Supreme Court decision would contribute to more gun violence.“What else has to happen before this country wakes up and understands that the people in this country don’t feel safe?” she asked. “The government, the courts, the lawmakers — they are here to protect us, and I don’t feel protected.”WeatherIt will be mostly sunny, with temperatures reaching the high 70s. At night, it will be mostly clear with temps around the high 60s.ALTERNATE-SIDE PARKINGIn effect until July 4 (Independence Day).The latest New York newsBrittainy Newman for The New York TimesCoronavirus vaccinesMandates: Mayor Eric Adams has not enforced the city’s coronavirus vaccine mandate for private businesses, and has no plans to do so.Parents’ relief: Families seeking vaccine shots for their children under age 5 trickled into vaccine hubs in Harlem and the Bronx. One parent said vaccinating his 3-year-old after 18 months of waiting gave him “peace of mind.”More local newsPenn Station woes: Nearly everyone agrees that something must be done to fix the chaos at Penn Station. Now comes the hard part of devising a solution that will steer clear of controversy.Maxwell’s sentencing: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan asked a judge to sentence Ghislaine Maxwell to at least 30 years in prison for helping Jeffrey Epstein recruit and abuse girls.Why Jewish political power has ebbed in New YorkRepresentative Carolyn Maloney, left, and Representative Jerrold Nadler are running against each other.Mary Altaffer/Associated PressAs recently as the 1990s, about half of the lawmakers whom New York City voters sent to the House of Representatives were Jewish. Now there is one, Representative Jerrold Nadler, and he is fighting for political survival because his district was combined with parts of Representative Carolyn Maloney’s on the Upper East Side. She’s running against him in the Aug. 23 primary. (That’s the right date. The congressional primaries are not being held next Tuesday with the primaries for statewide offices like governor and lieutenant governor. A federal judge ordered the House primaries delayed after the congressional districts were redrawn.)Last month we looked at the collision course that Nadler and Maloney are on. This week I asked my colleague Nicholas Fandos, who covers politics in New York, to put the race in the context of a changing New York.New York was long the center of Jewish political power in the United States. As recently as the 1990s, lawmakers who were Jewish made up about half of New York City’s delegation in the House of Representatives. What changed?It’s a complicated story, but it largely boils down to demographic change. New York’s Jewish population peaked in the 1950s, when one in four New Yorkers were Jewish. Today, there are about half as many Jewish residents in the city, and they tend to vote less cohesively than they once did. The exceptions are growing ultra-Orthodox communities, primarily in Brooklyn.Redistricting over the years has really reinforced this pattern.At the same time, New Yorkers of Black, Latino and Asian heritage have been gaining seats at the table that they historically did not have. So where in the early ’90s, eight New York City House members were Jewish, today nine of the 13 members representing parts of the city are Black or Latino, and another is Asian American.How did redistricting help Nadler in the past, and what happened this time around?Nadler’s current district was that way by design. Mapmakers in the past intentionally stitched together Jewish communities on the West Side of Manhattan with growing Orthodox ones in Brooklyn’s Borough Park, sometimes going to great lengths to connect them.But this year, a court-appointed mapmaker severed the connection. The mapmaker, it seems, was not persuaded that the communities shared enough interests to remain connected in such a geographically counterintuitive way.What about Nadler’s opponent in the primary, Representative Carolyn Maloney. She’s a Presbyterian running in what’s believed to be the most Jewish district in the country.Maloney is competing hard for the Jewish vote. She has been racking up endorsements. On the campaign trail, she touts a bill she’s passed on Holocaust education and her opposition to President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, which Israel’s government vehemently opposed at the time. (Nadler supported the deal.)What about pro-Israel political groups? Which one are they backing, Nadler or Maloney?So far, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has been quite active in Democratic primaries this year, is staying neutral, or supporting both candidates actually. J Street, the pro-Israel lobby that tries to be a liberal counterweight to AIPAC, is raising money for Nadler.METROPOLITAN diaryDoughnut manDear Diary:It was 1950. My grandmother would pick me up after school on Seventh Street near Avenue B and take me for ice cream and a pretzel rod or some other treat.On this particular day, she said we were going to the Second Avenue Griddle, my favorite place for jelly doughnuts. They were topped with crunchy sugar. You could bite into them anywhere, and real raspberry jam would ooze onto your fingertips.I could hardly contain my excitement as we walked the three long avenue blocks to Second Avenue. We walked into the store, and the counterman handed me a doughnut in wax paper. I bit into it and immediately had jelly all over my face. I was in doughnut heaven.The counterman motioned for me to come behind the counter. He pointed to a tray of freshly baked doughnuts and handed me a clean white apron that hung to my ankles. Then he handed me a doughnut in wax paper and showed me how to glide it onto the nozzle of the jelly machine.With my free hand, I was to push the handle of the machine slowly down so the jelly streamed into the doughnut without shooting out the other side. I became proficient enough to move things along, and soon all the doughnuts were filled.I washed my hands and handed the apron back when I was finished. My grandmother and I left for home.“Your Uncle Lenny must love you very much,” she said as we were walking. “If the owner of the store had come in, he would have been in a lot of trouble.”— Sandy SnyderIllustrated by Agnes Lee. Send submissions here and read more Metropolitan Diary here.Glad we could get together here. See you on Monday. — J.B.P.S. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here.Melissa Guerrero More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Boris Johnson Risks a Sharp Rebuke in U.K. By-Elections

      by

      Scandals, economic pain and an uproar over lockdown parties have left Britain’s Conservatives at risk of losing both recent advances and old strongholds.WAKEFIELD, England — Prime Minister Boris Johnson has yet to campaign in the stately but faded city of Wakefield in West Yorkshire, even though his Conservative Party is at risk of losing a highly symbolic seat in a parliamentary election there on Thursday. But that doesn’t mean he’s not on people’s minds — or tongues.“Boris Johnson has been convicted of breaking the law. He held parties in the place where they make the laws. It’s massive hypocrisy,” said Jordan Rendle, 31, who was getting his hair cut by a local barber, Andrew Prust.“We’re all human — 99.9 percent of the country didn’t stick to the rules,” Mr. Prust replied, his shrug reflected in the mirror.“OK, stop the haircut now!” Mr. Rendle spluttered in mock outrage, as he realized his barber backed the prime minister.“Boris Johnson has been convicted of breaking the law,” said Jordan Rendle, getting his hair cut, adding: “It’s massive hypocrisy.”Andrew Testa for The New York TimesEven in races where Mr. Johnson is not on the ballot, he manages to be an all-consuming, often polarizing figure. While this election, along with one in southwestern England, is to fill seats vacated by two lawmakers whose careers were ruined by their own scandals, the races are also a referendum of sorts on the scandal-scarred prime minister.How badly has he been damaged by the uproar over illicit parties held in Downing Street during the pandemic?Were the Conservatives to lose both seats, which is conceivable, it would do fresh damage to the record of electoral success that has helped Mr. Johnson survive the kind of turmoil — including a no-confidence vote by his own party — that would have sunk most politicians. A double defeat could trigger another mutiny among the 148 rebel Tory members of Parliament who voted to oust him only two weeks ago.“If those elections were to be lost quite badly, I can’t see why a good proportion of those M.P.s wouldn’t be demanding another no-confidence vote,” said Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London. “By-elections have a nasty habit of making a generalized problem acute.”For all the high stakes, campaigning in Wakefield has been muted.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesPolls suggest the Conservatives are on track to lose Wakefield to the main opposition Labour Party, less than three years after they won it in Mr. Johnson’s 2019 election landslide. That would give Labour back a seat it held for nearly 90 years and restore a brick to the party’s “red wall” — areas in England’s equivalent of the rust belt, former industrial cities and towns that were once Labour strongholds.The election in Tiverton and Honiton, in the rural Tory heartlands to the south, is more of a tossup. There, the centrist Liberal Democrats are hoping to evict the Conservatives from a seat they held since the district was created in 1997, and won with a hefty margin in 2019.The incumbent, Neil Parish, resigned in April after he admitted watching pornography on his phone while sitting in the House of Commons. In Wakefield, the Conservative, Imran Ahmad Khan, was jailed after being convicted of sexually assaulting a teenage boy.Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain speaking in 2019 during his Conservative Party’s final election campaign rally in London.Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated PressThe lurid circumstances that required these off-year elections make the Conservative Party especially vulnerable. It adds to the perception of what critics call “Tory sleaze.” But there is deeper disillusionment with politics in Wakefield, where a strike at one of the bus companies has depressed business at shops and restaurants.“Politicians always make promises and then they always break them,” said Christine Lee, 82, a retired dress designer, as she browsed in one of Wakefield’s mostly deserted outdoor shopping malls. She said she did not plan to vote on Thursday because neither the Labour nor the Conservative candidate would make a difference.Given its high stakes, the campaign has been surprisingly muted. The Labour candidate, Simon Lightwood, who is comfortably ahead in the polls, has avoided making waves. His Tory opponent, Nadeem Ahmed, has gone quiet since he gave an ill-fated interview to The Daily Telegraph last week, in which he described his predecessor, Mr. Khan, as a “one bad apple,” who should not cause voters to turn against all Conservatives.A Labour stronghold in Wakefield. The party lost the seat in 2019, but has been ahead in polls there.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesDavid Herdson, who is running for the independent Yorkshire Party, left the Conservatives because of Mr. Johnson’s “reckless strategy” on Brexit.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesMr. Ahmed likened the case to that of Harold Shipman, a notorious English doctor and serial killer who is believed to have murdered 250 of his patients as a general practitioner before killing himself in prison in Wakefield in 2004. “Have we stopped trusting G.P.s?” Mr. Ahmed said to the Telegraph. “No, we still trust G.P.s and we know that he was one bad apple in there.”Mr. Johnson has so far kept his distance. On Friday, he skipped a conference of northern Conservative lawmakers in the nearby city of Doncaster, instead making a repeat visit to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, where he met President Volodymyr Zelensky.To some local politicians, that was a telling sign.“Conservatives don’t think it’s worth fighting for,” said David Herdson, who is running for the seat as the candidate of the independent Yorkshire Party. “Labour thinks the election is in the bag, and they don’t want to make any mistakes.”Mr. Herdson, 48, who left the Conservative Party because of what he called Mr. Johnson’s “reckless strategy” in leaving the European Union, is emphasizing local concerns like affordable housing and better public transportation. He hopes for a respectable finish in the top five of a 15-candidate field. But in knocking on doors, he says he has encountered a “massive cynicism toward the political class in general.”A Labour Party spokeswoman, Phoebe Plomer, said Mr. Lightwood would spend the final days of the campaign telling voters that by defeating the Tories in Wakefield, they had a chance to force Mr. Johnson out of power. Under the rules of the Conservative Party, Mr. Johnson is not subject to another no-confidence vote for at least a year, though the rules can always be changed.A discount store in Wakefield, where a bus strike has emptied the town center.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesEither way, a loss in Wakefield would carry great symbolism. In 2019, the Conservatives pierced the red wall on the strength of Mr. Johnson’s promise to “get Brexit done.” That message appealed to disillusioned Labour voters, many of whom voted to leave the European Union in 2016. It was hailed as one of the most significant political realignments in British politics since the free-market revolution engineered by one of his Conservative predecessors, Margaret Thatcher.But instead of being revolutionary, Mr. Johnson’s leadership has been chaotic. In the wake of the no-confidence vote, his ethics adviser quit in despair last week, and Parliament is still scrutinizing whether the prime minister lied to lawmakers. On top of all that is a cost-of-living squeeze and a potential recession in the coming months.“There is this conventional thinking that Boris is this Heineken politician who can appeal to Labour voters,” Mr. Bale said, alluding to British ads in which a lager brand promised that it “refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach.”“But his appeal is actually kind of limited,” Mr. Bale said, “and he has become more of a liability then an asset.”Shoppers at an outdoor food market in Wakefield.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesGeoff Hayes, 72, who once worked in the now-defunct coal mines that ring Wakefield, said Mr. Johnson had sold many Labour voters on the promise that Brexit would liberate Britain from the regulatory shackles of the European Union. Now, however, they were realizing that the reality was trucks lined up for miles at ports on the English Channel, where they faced delays because of bureaucratic customs paperwork.“A lot of people thought Brexit was going to change everything,” said Mr. Hayes, as he gazed at peregrine falcons nesting in the steeple of Wakefield’s cathedral. “But in the end,” he said, “the Tories only care about the mega rich.” More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Por qué Israel tiene tantas elecciones?

      by

      Los israelíes regresarán a las urnas por quinta vez, en menos de cuatro años.JERUSALÉN — El primer ministro israelí, Naftali Bennett, estará tomando decisiones en los próximos días para disolver el Parlamento y derrocar a su propio gobierno un año después de asumir el cargo, un proceso que desencadenará la celebración de nuevas elecciones dentro de unos meses. El proyecto de ley de disolución ha sido programado para una votación preliminar el miércoles, con una votación final que probablemente se realizará el lunes.La coalición de Bennett había comenzado con una mayoría mínima y recientemente la perdió, lo que hizo que fuese imposible gobernar.Una nueva elección le dará a Benjamin Netanyahu, el ex primer ministro de Israel con más años de servicio y ahora líder de la oposición, la oportunidad de regresar al poder aunque lucha contra unos cargos de corrupción. Sin embargo, su regreso está lejos de estar asegurado.Salvo el escenario improbable de que Netanyahu u otro líder del partido pueda formar una coalición alternativa con al menos 61 escaños en el Parlamento de 120 curules, los israelíes regresarán a las urnas en el otoño por quinta vez en menos de cuatro años.Aquí ofrecemos algunas explicaciones de la actual situación política en el país.¿Qué tipo de gobierno tiene Israel?Israel es una democracia parlamentaria con un sistema electoral de representación proporcional. Ningún partido ha obtenido nunca los votos suficientes para obtener una mayoría absoluta en el Parlamento. Es por eso que los partidos más grandes deben formar coaliciones consiguiendo el apoyo de los movimientos políticos más pequeños que negocian para proteger sus intereses y, a menudo, terminan ejerciendo un poder desproporcionado.Los últimos años han sido particularmente tumultuosos. Entre abril de 2019 y marzo de 2021, Israel celebró cuatro comicios que terminaron sin resultados concluyentes, con una legislatura dividida entre los partidos aliados con Netanyahu, quien fue primer ministro durante 15 años, y los que se oponen a sus intentos de permanecer en el poder.Asientos vacíos en la Knéset, el lunesAbir Sultan/EPA vía Shutterstock¿Por qué colapsó el gobierno actual?Bennett, máximo dirigente de un pequeño partido de derecha, ha liderado una difícil coalición de ocho movimientos formada por opositores políticos de derecha, izquierda y centro con agendas ideológicas enfrentadas, y que incluyó al primer partido árabe independiente que se ha unido a una coalición de gobierno israelí.Apodada por algunos como la “coalición kumbaya”, sus integrantes estaban unidos por el deseo de restaurar un sentido de unidad y estabilidad nacional, y principalmente, derrocar a Netanyahu después de que pasó 12 años consecutivos en el cargo.Pero las tensiones dentro de la coalición por cuestiones políticas y la presión implacable de Netanyahu y sus aliados hicieron que dos miembros de Yamina, el partido de Bennett, abandonaran la coalición. Varios legisladores árabes y de izquierda también se rebelaron en votaciones clave, lo que hizo que el gobierno se paralizara y luego entrara en crisis.Entonces, ¿quién lidera a Israel en este momento?Cuando finalmente se apruebe la disolución del Parlamento, muy probablemente antes de fines de junio, Bennett entregará el poder a Yair Lapid, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores —un político de centro muy conocido por haber sido una personalidad de la televisión durante muchos años—, quien encabezará un gobierno provisional durante varios meses hasta que se convoque la elección y mientras se realizan las prolongadas negociaciones para una nueva coalición.Según los términos del acuerdo de coalición, se suponía que Lapid, el líder de Yesh Atid, el segundo partido más grande de Israel después del conservador Likud de Netanyahu, remplazaría a Bennett como primer ministro en agosto de 2023.Pero el acuerdo incluía una cláusula de seguridad en caso de que el gobierno no durara tanto. Estipulaba que si el Parlamento se disolvía debido a las acciones de los miembros de la coalición de derecha, como es el caso, Lapid se convertiría automáticamente en primer ministro interino del gobierno provisional.Trabajadores de la Comisión Electoral Central de Israel durante el recuento final de votos en la Knéset, en Jerusalén, el año pasado.Abir Sultan/EPA vía Shutterstock¿Cuándo son las próximas elecciones y quién se postulará?Aún no se ha fijado una fecha para la elección, pero pareciera existir un consenso sobre la fecha, que probablemente será a fines de octubre o principios de noviembre.Netanyahu y su partido Likud lideran las encuestas, seguidos por Lapid y Yesh Atid. Bennett, cuyo partido Yamina ocupaba solo seis escaños en el Parlamento cuando tomó posesión el año pasado, no parece haber obtenido mucho apoyo adicional.Al líder del partido que obtiene la mayor cantidad de votos generalmente se le otorga la primera oportunidad de formar un gobierno. El caso de Bennett fue muy inusual: se desempeñó como primer ministro porque era visto como el más aceptable para el flanco derecho de la diversa coalición.¿La próxima vez será diferente?Es posible que una quinta elección no produzca un resultado más definitivo o un gobierno más estable que las cuatro anteriores, según los analistas.“Hemos estado en esta película cuatro veces y podemos obtener resultados similares una quinta vez”, dijo Gideon Rahat, politólogo de la Universidad Hebrea de Jerusalén.“Por parte de Netanyahu, puede haber 1000 elecciones”, agregó Rahat. “Está preparado para barajar las cartas una y otra vez hasta que gane”.Los aliados de Netanyahu esperan que la decepción con el gobierno de Bennett impulse a los votantes de derecha que habían abandonado al líder político para que vuelvan a apoyarlo.“Mucha gente ha cambiado de opinión”, dijo Tzachi Hanegbi, un legislador experimentado de Likud y exministro, señalando las encuestas que muestran una erosión en el apoyo hacia algunos partidos de la coalición de Bennett.Pero a menos que Netanyahu salga victorioso y forme el próximo gobierno, dijo Ben Caspit, comentarista político y autor de dos biografías de Netanyahu, esta podría ser su última campaña electoral porque algunos de sus aliados políticos parecen menos inclinados a tolerar otro fracaso.Una valla publicitaria del partido Likud el año pasado, en Jerusalén. Muestra a Benjamin Netanyahu, a la derecha, y a sus rivales políticos, Gideon Saar, Naftali Bennett y Yair Lapid con un titular que dice: “Solo Likud formará un gobierno de derecha completo”.Abir Sultan/EPA vía Shutterstock¿Cuáles son los temas más controversiales?Esta última agitación política se produce en medio de una escalada en una batalla clandestina entre Israel e Irán. Y el conflicto con los palestinos se cierne sobre cada elección.Esta vez, es probable que la integración de los partidos árabes de Israel en el gobierno nacional sea el centro de atención. En repetidas oportunidades, Netanyahu intentó deslegitimar al gobierno de Bennett calificándolo como “dependiente de los partidarios del terrorismo”, refiriéndose a los políticos árabes que son ciudadanos de Israel.Los israelíes de centro y de izquierda dicen que un gobierno de Netanyahu dependerá de los extremistas de extrema derecha.Netanyahu ha prometido más acuerdos de paz con países que alguna vez fueron hostiles. Con la ayuda del gobierno de Trump, había establecido relaciones diplomáticas con los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, Bahréin y Marruecos.El aumento del costo de vida y los precios exorbitantes de la vivienda son quizás los temas más preocupantes para muchos votantes.Los críticos de Netanyahu dijeron que si regresa al poder, la democracia misma de Israel estaría en juego porque sus aliados piden restricciones en el sistema judicial y la cancelación de su juicio.“Quiere aplastar la democracia israelí y establecer una dictadura corrupta sin tribunales y con medios que le sirvan”, dijo Or-Ly Barlev, activista social israelí y periodista independiente. “Estamos al borde de un abismo”.Isabel Kershner, corresponsal en Jerusalén, ha estado informando sobre la política israelí y palestina desde 1990. Es autora de “Barrera: la costura del conflicto israelí-palestino”. @IKershner • Facebook More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ocasio-Cortez to Endorse Ana María Archila in NY Lt. Governor Race

      by

      Ana María Archila, who would be the first Latina elected statewide, gained national attention after she confronted a senator over the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.For much of her first term, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised her profile by fighting for nationwide initiatives favored by the far left, like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.But in recent months, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, whose district includes parts of Queens and the Bronx, has shown a strong interest in more local issues, and in lifting the profile of people far closer to home.On Wednesday, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez will make her first statewide endorsement in the contest for lieutenant governor, backing Ana María Archila, an activist who some on the left believe has a chance of becoming the first Latina elected to statewide office.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is expected to appear at a rally for Ms. Archila on Monday, one day before the June 28 primary, and will also send out a fund-raising email. Ms. Archila’s campaign believes the endorsement will increase donors, volunteers and energize left-leaning Democrats to vote.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement, which was confirmed by her spokeswoman, Lauren Hitt, may also encourage other national progressive Democratic leaders to take more interest in the contest.A Guide to New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.Governor’s Race: Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent, will face off against Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi in a Democratic primary on June 28.Adams’s Endorsement: The New York City mayor gave Ms. Hochul a valuable, if belated, endorsement that could help her shore up support among Black and Latino voters.15 Democrats, 1 Seat: A Trump prosecutor. An ex-congressman. Bill de Blasio. A newly redrawn House district in New York City may be one of the largest and most freewheeling primaries in the nation.Maloney vs. Nadler: The new congressional lines have put the two stalwart Manhattan Democrats on a collision course in the Aug. 23 primary.Offensive Remarks: Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, recently drew backlash for praising Adolf Hitler in an interview dating back to 2021.“What A.O.C. represents is a constituency of young people who are so tired of the passivity of mainstream Democrats on the issues of our moment, whether it is climate, making progress on dismantling the racist structure in our legal system or standing with workers,” Ms. Archila said in an interview. “The future of the Democratic Party is this new wave and this new generation.”Ms. Archila, who is running in tandem with Jumaane D. Williams, the New York City public advocate, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, know each other. In 2019, Ms. Archila was Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s guest at the State of the Union address, after she got national attention for confronting Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona in an elevator over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.Ms. Archila and another Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, Diana Reyna, face an uphill challenge in trying to defeat the newly installed incumbent, Antonio Delgado, a former congressman who left his House seat last month.Some elected officials and union leaders are worried that Gov. Kathy Hochul is running too low-key of a primary campaign, and that it could hurt the chances of Mr. Delgado, even though he has much more money than Ms. Archila.“While the opposition might want to take advantage of a sleepy electorate that is not aware of Election Day, we want as many voters as possible to know what is at stake in this race,” said Sochie Nnaemeka, the head of the New York State Working Families Party, which has endorsed Ms. Archila.An endorsement from Ms. Ocasio-Cortez does not guarantee victory. Last year, she endorsed Maya Wiley, a civil rights lawyer and former counsel for Mayor Bill de Blasio, in the race for mayor of New York City. Ms. Wiley came in third place in the Democratic primary.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez recently endorsed Alessandra Biaggi, a state senator representing parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, in her primary challenge to Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, a moderate Democrat.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez also has been willing to weigh in on local controversies, recently accusing the speaker of the New York City Council, Adrienne Adams, of playing “dirty politics,” amid accusations that she eliminated discretionary funding under her control of the left-leaning members who voted against the $101 billion budget.In May, she announced that she would be endorsing the entire slate of the New York Democratic Socialists’ candidates, as well as some backed by the progressive Working Families Party. The two left-leaning parties have occasionally been at odds with one another. This year they have aligned in support of a handful of challengers hoping to pick off long-serving incumbents in the State Legislature, in much the same way that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez herself did in 2018.In several races young women of color are challenging long-serving male incumbents in districts whose demographics have evolved during their time in office. Others are challenging heavy hitters such as Senate energy chair Kevin Parker. Opponents claim these veterans have not been responsive enough to progressive demands.The bulk of these challengers are looking for seats in the State Assembly, which some on the left have portrayed as an impediment to pushing a transformative agenda through the state legislature.There are national echoes in some of these races. Jonathan Soto, a former organizer for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez running with her endorsement, is hoping to unseat Assemblyman Michael Benedetto in the East Bronx. While campaigning to increase parental control over schools and expand access to health care, Mr. Soto has accused Mr. Benedetto of carrying water for conservatives, including the former president Donald J. Trump, who donated to him several years ago.Mr. Benedetto, who is backed by the state’s Democratic establishment, strongly rejected these claims. In a video posted to Twitter he announced, “Benedetto a Trump supporter? Garbage!” before tossing Mr. Soto’s campaign literature into an awaiting bin.Mr. Benedetto has echoed some conservative attacks on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez in pushing back at his opponent, whom he has sought to paint as an out-of-touch extremist.Assemblywoman Inez E. Dickens, who is facing a challenger backed by the congresswoman, took aim at Ms. Ocasio-Cortez directly: “She needs to really think about coming into my district because I will stand up and I will push back,” she said. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Boris Johnson Is in Trouble, and So Is Britain’s Conservative Party

      by

      LONDON — For Boris Johnson, Britain’s embattled and scandal-ridden prime minister, nowhere is safe.On Thursday, that may become inescapably clear. Two local elections — one in a traditional Tory area in South Devon that the party has controlled almost continuously since 1885, the other in a postindustrial seat in North England that the Tories took from Labour for the first time in 90 years in 2019 — will deliver a decisive assessment of Mr. Johnson’s flailing popularity. As things stand, the Conservatives are set to lose both.Mr. Johnson’s ability to win over such disparate people and places — affluent farmers and neglected manufacturers, the shires in the South and old Labour heartlands in the North — once ensured his position at the top of the Conservative Party. Yet now, as Britain hovers on the brink of economic recession, the constituencies that previously united around the prime minister appear to be rejecting him. For Mr. Johnson, his authority frayed by a recent no confidence vote, a double defeat would leave his tenure hanging by a thread.But the Conservatives’ problems are much bigger than the prime minister. After 12 years in office, under three different leaders, the Conservatives have collectively set the stage for Britain’s woes. The balance sheet is dire: Wages haven’t risen in real terms since 2010, austerity has hollowed out local communities, and regional inequality has deepened. Britain’s protracted departure from the European Union, pursued by the Conservatives without a clear plan, has only made matters worse.For this litany of failures, the Conservatives seem to be finally paying the price. After four successive electoral victories, each one with a larger share of the vote, the party has trailed in the polls all year. Thursday’s elections are likely to be yet another indicator of the public’s growing disenchantment, one that bodes badly for the party’s chances in the next election, due by the start of 2025. Unable to address the country’s deep-seated problems and devoid of direction, the Conservatives are in trouble — whether led by Mr. Johnson or not.As the prices of food and energy soar to record levels, Conservatives can point to causes outside their control: the pandemic’s global disruption, lockdowns in China, Russia’s war in Ukraine. But they cannot explain why, in this time of global crisis, Britain is afflicted with particular severity. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Britain’s economy won’t grow at all next year — a bleak forecast shared only, among major economies, with Russia.That should concern the Conservatives, whose dismal economic record is visible everywhere, from rising levels of poverty to chronically underfunded public services. In the National Health Service, to which Conservatives love to pronounce their loyalty, wages for health care workers have fallen in real terms, and an estimated 110,000 positions lie vacant. As the waiting list for medical attention hits an all-time high, ever more Britons are going private: The average amount now spent by households on health care, as a percentage of G.D.P., is nearing levels in America. For a country so proud of its public health care, it’s an especially painful development.For Conservatives, the chaos of Mr. Johnson’s prime ministership offers another appealing alibi. Having first ridden on the back of Mr. Johnson’s unruliness, Conservatives now claim that it is impeding their ability to address the serious problems facing the country. They often complain that they just want to “get back to governing.” But the truth is that Conservatives gave up on governing long ago — a fact that accounts both for Britain’s current mess and Mr. Johnson’s appeal in the first place.Indeed, while Mr. Johnson’s own desperation to become party leader was always an open secret, his eventual rise to the top relied on his Conservative colleagues’ desperation as well. By 2019, after almost a decade in power and with little positive to show for it, there was a pressing need to plot a new national course. In a rut and out of ideas, Conservatives turned instead to a known peddler of feel-good fantasies. Mr. Johnson offered Conservatives an escape — from Europe, seriousness and self-doubt. What he lacked in sense of direction he made up for with his boundless optimism and sense of humor. Punch lines could take the place of policy, raising spirits if not wages.Mr. Johnson’s boosterism, giddily amplified by his cheerleaders in the right-wing press, worked for a while. During the push to leave the European Union, and even during the devastatingly mishandled pandemic, Mr. Johnson could play the role of mascot, rallying the nation for the task ahead. But now in the wreckage of that double disruption, each one exacerbated by Mr. Johnson’s incompetence, the Conservative leader has lost his charm. His jokes, amid an escalating cost-of-living crisis, fall flat. And having finally “got Brexit done,” as his winning campaign slogan promised, Mr. Johnson struggles to pin blame for the nation’s troubles on the European Union. Fed up with broken promises and brazen deceit, voters are turning against him.But Conservatives can avoid their own reckoning for only so long. First through austerity, then through Brexit and Mr. Johnson, the Conservatives have left Britain in the ruins of their ambition. Each one of their proposed solutions, offered in the name of national renewal, has made the situation worse. No one in the party can escape blame for this baleful legacy. One of the pretenders to Mr. Johnson’s throne — Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss or Jeremy Hunt — may offer a change in style. But a substantial change of course is unlikely to come. An economy predicated on low productivity and low investment, buttressed by a self-defeating lack of seriousness about Britain’s condition, is all the Conservatives seem to be able to offer.In the 1960s, an English satirist named Peter Cook warned that Britain was in danger of “sinking giggling into the sea.” Today, the feeling is pervasive. Over 12 years, the Conservatives have unmoored Britain from its foundations and perpetuated a failed economic model, accelerating the nation’s descent into disorder. For the most part, Conservatives have cheered the country on its way. On Thursday, Britain will at least learn if the tide is finally turning.Samuel Earle (@swajcmanearle) is a British journalist at work on a book about how the Conservative Party has dominated Britain for almost two centuries.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

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      In Two Elections, North and South, Boris Johnson Risks a Sharp Rebuke

      by

      Scandals, economic pain and an uproar over lockdown parties have left Britain’s Conservatives at risk of losing both recent advances and old strongholds.WAKEFIELD, England — Prime Minister Boris Johnson has yet to campaign in the stately but faded city of Wakefield in West Yorkshire, even though his Conservative Party is at risk of losing a highly symbolic seat in a parliamentary election there on Thursday. But that doesn’t mean he’s not on people’s minds — or tongues.“Boris Johnson has been convicted of breaking the law. He held parties in the place where they make the laws. It’s massive hypocrisy,” said Jordan Rendle, 31, who was getting his hair cut by a local barber, Andrew Prust.“We’re all human — 99.9 percent of the country didn’t stick to the rules,” Mr. Prust replied, his shrug reflected in the mirror.“OK, stop the haircut now!” Mr. Rendle spluttered in mock outrage, as he realized his barber backed the prime minister.“Boris Johnson has been convicted of breaking the law,” said Jordan Rendle, getting his hair cut, adding: “It’s massive hypocrisy.”Andrew Testa for The New York TimesEven in races where Mr. Johnson is not on the ballot, he manages to be an all-consuming, often polarizing figure. While this election, along with one in southwestern England, is to fill seats vacated by two lawmakers whose careers were ruined by their own scandals, the races are also a referendum of sorts on the scandal-scarred prime minister.How badly has he been damaged by the uproar over illicit parties held in Downing Street during the pandemic?Were the Conservatives to lose both seats, which is conceivable, it would do fresh damage to the record of electoral success that has helped Mr. Johnson survive the kind of turmoil — including a no-confidence vote by his own party — that would have sunk most politicians. A double defeat could trigger another mutiny among the 148 rebel Tory members of Parliament who voted to oust him only two weeks ago.“If those elections were to be lost quite badly, I can’t see why a good proportion of those M.P.s wouldn’t be demanding another no-confidence vote,” said Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London. “By-elections have a nasty habit of making a generalized problem acute.”For all the high stakes, campaigning in Wakefield has been muted.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesPolls suggest the Conservatives are on track to lose Wakefield to the main opposition Labour Party, less than three years after they won it in Mr. Johnson’s 2019 election landslide. That would give Labour back a seat it held for nearly 90 years and restore a brick to the party’s “red wall” — areas in England’s equivalent of the rust belt, former industrial cities and towns that were once Labour strongholds.The election in Tiverton and Honiton, in the rural Tory heartlands to the south, is more of a tossup. There, the centrist Liberal Democrats are hoping to evict the Conservatives from a seat they held since the district was created in 1997, and won with a hefty margin in 2019.The incumbent, Neil Parish, resigned in April after he admitted watching pornography on his phone while sitting in the House of Commons. In Wakefield, the Conservative, Imran Ahmad Khan, was jailed after being convicted of sexually assaulting a teenage boy.Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain speaking in 2019 during his Conservative Party’s final election campaign rally in London.Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated PressThe lurid circumstances that required these off-year elections makes the Conservative Party especially vulnerable. It adds to the perception of what critics call “Tory sleaze.” But there is deeper disillusionment with politics in Wakefield, where a strike at one of the bus companies has depressed business at shops and restaurants.“Politicians always make promises and then they always break them,” said Christine Lee, 82, a retired dress designer, as she browsed in one of Wakefield’s mostly deserted outdoor shopping malls. She said she did not plan to vote on Thursday because neither the Labour nor the Conservative candidate would make a difference.Given its high stakes, the campaign has been surprisingly muted. The Labour candidate, Simon Lightwood, who is comfortably ahead in the polls, has avoided making waves. His Tory opponent, Nadeem Ahmed, has gone quiet since he gave an ill-fated interview to The Daily Telegraph last week, in which he described his predecessor, Mr. Khan, as a “one bad apple,” who should not cause voters to turn against all Conservatives.A Labour stronghold in Wakefield. The party lost the seat in 2019, but has been ahead in polls there.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesDavid Herdson, who is running for the independent Yorkshire Party, left the Conservatives because of Mr. Johnson’s “reckless strategy” on Brexit.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesMr. Ahmed likened the case to that of Harold Shipman, a notorious English doctor and serial killer who is believed to have murdered 250 of his patients as a general practitioner before killing himself in prison in Wakefield in 2004. “Have we stopped trusting G.P.s?” Mr. Ahmed said to the Telegraph. “No, we still trust G.P.s and we know that he was one bad apple in there.”Mr. Johnson has so far kept his distance. On Friday, he skipped a conference of northern Conservative lawmakers in the nearby city of Doncaster, instead making a repeat visit to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, where he met President Volodymyr Zelensky.To some local politicians, that was a telling sign.“Conservatives don’t think it’s worth fighting for,” said David Herdson, who is running for the seat as the candidate of the independent Yorkshire Party. “Labour thinks the election is in the bag, and they don’t want to make any mistakes.”Mr. Herdson, 48, who left the Conservative Party because of what he called Mr. Johnson’s “reckless strategy” in leaving the European Union, is emphasizing local concerns like affordable housing and better public transportation. He hopes for a respectable finish in the top five of a 15-candidate field. But in knocking on doors, he says he has encountered a “massive cynicism toward the political class in general.”A Labour Party spokeswoman, Phoebe Plomer, said Mr. Lightwood would spend the final days of the campaign telling voters that by defeating the Tories in Wakefield, they had a chance to force Mr. Johnson out of power. Under the rules of the Conservative Party, Mr. Johnson is not subject to another no-confidence vote for at least a year, though the rules can always be changed.A discount store in Wakefield, where a bus strike has emptied the town center.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesEither way, a loss in Wakefield would carry great symbolism. In 2019, the Conservatives pierced the red wall on the strength of Mr. Johnson’s promise to “get Brexit done.” That message appealed to disillusioned Labour voters, many of whom voted to leave the European Union in 2016. It was hailed as one of the most significant political realignments in British politics since the free-market revolution engineered by one of his Conservative predecessors, Margaret Thatcher.But instead of being revolutionary, Mr. Johnson’s leadership has been chaotic. In the wake of the no-confidence vote, his ethics adviser quit in despair last week, and Parliament is still scrutinizing whether the prime minister lied to lawmakers. On top of all that is a cost-of-living squeeze and a potential recession in the coming months.“There is this conventional thinking that Boris is this Heineken politician who can appeal to Labour voters,” Mr. Bale said, alluding to British ads in which a lager brand promised that it “refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach.”“But his appeal is actually kind of limited,” Mr. Bale said, “and he has become more of a liability then an asset.”Shoppers at an outdoor food market in Wakefield.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesGeoff Hayes, 72, who once worked in the now-defunct coal mines that ring Wakefield, said Mr. Johnson had sold many Labour voters on the promise that Brexit would liberate Britain from the regulatory shackles of the European Union. Now, however, they were realizing that the reality was trucks lined up for miles at ports on the English Channel, where they faced delays because of bureaucratic customs paperwork.“A lot of people thought Brexit was going to change everything,” said Mr. Hayes, as he gazed at peregrine falcons nesting in the steeple of Wakefield’s cathedral. “But in the end,” he said, “the Tories only care about the mega rich.” More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Will Kathy Hochul’s Low-Key Primary Come at a Cost? Allies Fear Yes.

      by

      Charles B. Rangel, the longtime dean of Harlem politics, had a blunt question for two of Gov. Kathy Hochul’s top political aides at a private meeting last month: Where’s the campaign?Mr. Rangel told the campaign officials they were concerned that the governor was unwisely leaving vote-rich Black and Latino neighborhoods unattended. No posters, no palm cards, no subway surrogates or other ground operations typically used to drive voters to the polls for the June 28 primary for governor of New York.“There was absolutely nobody that knew anybody that was doing anything,” Mr. Rangel recalled recently. “There was absolutely no action at all in the district.”Representative Gregory W. Meeks, the head of the Queens Democratic machine, shared similar concerns around the same time. In a call with Ms. Hochul, he urged her to give more attention to communities like his and put together a more diverse political operation that could excite voters.And more recently, three major union leaders backing Ms. Hochul who spoke with The New York Times said they were perplexed that the governor’s team has not asked for help to canvass, rally or perform other political errands her predecessors demanded. One of them said flatly he saw no evidence of campaign activity.By all accounts, Ms. Hochul is headed toward a comfortable primary win. She has cornered nearly every major political endorsement and collected record-breaking donations, while outspending her opponents, Thomas R. Suozzi and Jumaane D. Williams, by millions of dollars on television and digital advertising.The commanding lead has enabled Ms. Hochul’s team to deploy a so-called Rose Garden strategy, eschewing the kind of all-out, on-the-ground campaign used by her challengers in an effort to conserve cash and position a new governor still introducing herself to New Yorkers above the political fray ahead of a grueling general election this fall.Most of the political appearances she has made this spring — in Black churches or marching in parades, for instance — have been official government events or unpublicized appearances. In the last month, her campaign has flagged only five official events for the media.In interviews over the last week, a broad spectrum of elected officials, party leaders and Democratic strategists expressed worry that the governor’s low-key approach may come at the cost of building the kind of old-fashioned political ground game and enthusiasm with bedrock Black, Latino and union voters that a relatively untested candidate from Western New York like Ms. Hochul will need to drive Democratic voters to the polls in November.They fear that the governor’s campaign strategy could cause Democratic turnout in the state’s largest liberal stronghold to falter, leaving Democrats in key congressional and state races vulnerable, if not endangering the party’s hold on the governor’s mansion.A Guide to New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.Governor’s Race: Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent, will face off against Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi in a Democratic primary on June 28.Adams’s Endorsement: The New York City mayor gave Ms. Hochul a valuable, if belated, endorsement that could help her shore up support among Black and Latino voters.15 Democrats, 1 Seat: A Trump prosecutor. An ex-congressman. Bill de Blasio. A newly redrawn House district in New York City may be one of the largest and most freewheeling primaries in the nation.Maloney vs. Nadler: The new congressional lines have put the two stalwart Manhattan Democrats on a collision course in the Aug. 23 primary.Offensive Remarks: Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, recently drew backlash for praising Adolf Hitler in an interview dating back to 2021.“She’s not from New York City, she’s from Buffalo,” Mr. Meeks said in an interview, suggesting that Ms. Hochul needed to “move very vigorously” to expand a team currently led by top advisers from upstate New York, Colorado, Washington, D.C., and North Carolina, by bringing more labor, business and nonwhite voices to the table.“She acknowledged lots of people in her campaign ran statewide but are not necessarily endemic to New York City politics, which is important,” he added. “When you’re running for governor, you’ve got to expand that base. That’s what she is doing.”Representative Gregory Meeks said that Gov. Hochul needed to diversify her campaign team, especially as a candidate with few ties to New York City.Pool photo by Sarah SilbigerAnd although Ms. Hochul seems poised to win the primary, Democratic strategists warned that soft turnout in the primary could hurt her running mate, Antonio Delgado, who is in a tighter contest against Ana María Archila and Diana Reyna, and potentially saddle Ms. Hochul with an adversarial running mate in the fall.“Everyone is scratching their heads. She’s held no rallies and she needs to get out the vote,” said George Arzt, a Democratic strategist who has run campaigns in New York City since the 1980s. “The person who’s in jeopardy is not her, but her running mate.”Tyquana Henderson-Rivers, a senior adviser to Ms. Hochul with deep ties among New York City Democrats, defended the governor’s approach in an interview, acknowledging that the campaign was taking a “slower build” approach than some elected officials might be used to. But it has its reasons.This is the first year New York’s primary for governor is occurring in June, rather than September, extending the campaign season between the primary and the general election. The pandemic still makes certain in-person campaign tactics difficult. And Ms. Hochul’s team is consciously conserving resources to prepare for a greater general election threat than her Democratic predecessors have faced in years.“We hear you,” Ms. Henderson-Rivers said, when asked about fellow Democrats raising concerns to the campaign, before adding that Ms. Hochul’s operation would be humming when it matters. “It will not be cold, I assure you. We’re revving.”To be certain, there are signs that the governor’s campaign is ramping up.Ms. Hochul attended a breakfast hosted by Mr. Meeks in southeast Queens with more than 200 clergy and civic leaders in mid-June. Mr. Rangel acknowledged that the Hochul campaign had increased its presence in Harlem, where dozens of volunteers and paid staff, including from the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, fanned out this past weekend to knock on doors and hand out literature.A campaign spokesman, Jerrel Harvey, said that Ms. Hochul’s paid media and field program “will reach voters where they are, and benefit all Democrats now and in November.”The campaign says it has spent more than $13 million on TV and radio airwaves so far, another $1 million-plus on digital advertising, and the state party has targeted more than 400,000 households with traditional mail, many of them African American, Latino and Asian — figures far higher than any of her rivals.“If I were the Democrats, I’d be worried about a lot of things in November,” said Jason Ortiz, a veteran political operative with close ties to the hotels and casino union. “But Kathy Hochul being governor would not be one.”And yet, second-guessing about Ms. Hochul’s approach has been relatively common. Some supporters of the governor are quietly making comparisons to her predecessor, Andrew M. Cuomo, a ruthless political tactician who deployed labor unions, political surrogates and wielded the governor’s office to run up big margins.Mr. Cuomo made particular use of organized labor, using them as de facto political staff, deploying union members to shadow his opponents, knock on doors and create a sense of momentum around his campaign.Ms. Hochul, with notable exceptions, has so far largely limited her requests to donating money. Some of the unions, who requested anonymity to avoid alienating Ms. Hochul, said they planned to start get-out-the-vote efforts of their own volition.“It’s an unusual approach for a governor, but I think it’s a strategic one that may prove to be better in the city than one would expect,” said Henry Garrido, executive director of the city’s largest public union, District Council 37. “Normally what would happen, we have a model where you try to get as much momentum through physical presence, showing up everywhere, rallying and speaking.”Instead, Mr. Garrido said, the governor had enlisted his help in quieter events in Latino communities in Inwood and the Bronx. He predicted they would work in her favor.Unlike Mr. Cuomo, Ms. Hochul has tended to shun the political spotlight for many more overtly political events, like a Monday stop in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community of Borough Park, electing not to publicly announce them beforehand.“She’s walked the streets with me,” said Representative Adriano Espaillat, who represents Mr. Rangel’s old district. Mr. Espaillat has tweeted about the events, but he said Ms. Hochul’s decision not to broadly publicize them was her prerogative: “They do what they think is best.”From left to right, Governor Hochul; Eric Gonzalez, the Brooklyn district attorney; and Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado at the Puerto Rican Day Parade in June.Porter Binks/EPA, via ShutterstockIn central Brooklyn, home to another large block of Black voters whose votes help power winning Democratic coalitions, Ms. Hochul appears to still have work to do to win over two powerful leaders who could help galvanize votes: Letitia James, the popular New York attorney general who briefly ran against her, and Representative Hakeem Jeffries.Mr. Jeffries has formally endorsed Ms. Hochul (Ms. James has not), but he has yet to campaign with her and has told associates he is disappointed Ms. Hochul did not speak out against a court-imposed congressional redistricting plan that wreaked havoc on some communities of color and the state’s delegation to Washington.Asked if he thought Ms. Hochul was doing enough in communities of color in New York City, Mr. Jeffries said he had no comment. Ms. James’s campaign also declined to comment when asked if she expected to make an endorsement in the race.Democratic officials and campaign strategists in Latino strongholds in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx have shared their own concerns.Luis A. Miranda Jr., a founding partner of the MirRam Group, a political consulting firm that is working on Ms. James’s re-election campaign, said he emerged from a recent dinner with Ms. Hochul impressed with both the governor and a new “Nueva York” initiative by State Democratic Party leaders dedicated to turning out Latinos. But he said the governor and her team had more to do to persuade Latino voters and leaders, some of whom have cast doubt on Mr. Delgado’s claim to Afro-Latino roots.“Where she has to do the work is not exclusively with her campaign, it’s with the Democratic Party that should be serving her and her ticket,” he said. “Everyone thinks that if they hire three people and have a slogan, they are reaching to the community. It’s window dressing.”For his part, Mr. Meeks said he was confident Ms. Hochul understood the gravity of correcting course, and would generate a strong showing in his part of Queens. But given the stakes for the party, he said “of course there can be improvement.”“It’s essential,” he said, summoning memories of Republican Gov. George E. Pataki’s 1994 victory. “The one time that we ended up with a Republican governor, I remember that very vividly because it was a low turnout, particularly in the African American community in the City of New York.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Las democracias no siempre se comportan de manera democrática

      by

      Cuando los líderes políticos se enfrentan a una crisis constitucional, como la del 6 de enero en EE. UU., el proceso de decidir colectivamente cómo responder puede ser desordenado, arbitrario y, a veces, cambiar la naturaleza del propio sistema.Cuando buscamos casos similares en el mundo al momento del año pasado en el que el entonces vicepresidente Mike Pence se negó a ceder ante la presión del presidente Donald Trump para ayudarlo a revertir su derrota electoral, algo queda claro casi de inmediato.Este tipo de crisis, en las que el destino de la democracia queda en manos de un puñado de funcionarios, rara vez se resuelven únicamente sobre la base de principios legales o constitucionales, aunque luego sean citados como justificación.En su lugar, por lo general la resolución está determinada por las élites políticas que logran formar rápidamente una masa crítica a favor de un resultado. Y esos funcionarios pueden seguir cualquier motivación —principios, antipatía partidista, interés propio— que los movilice.En conjunto, la historia de las crisis constitucionales modernas destaca algunas duras verdades sobre la democracia. Las normas supuestamente fundamentales, como elecciones libres o el Estado de derecho, aunque se presenten como si estuvieran cimentadas de manera irreversible en las bases de la nación, en realidad solo son tan sólidas como el compromiso de quienes estén en el poder. Y si bien una crisis puede ser una oportunidad para que los líderes refuercen las normas democráticas, también puede ser una oportunidad para revisarlas o revocarlas por completo.Por ejemplo, en medio de las elecciones de Yugoslavia de 2000, la oposición declaró que había obtenido suficientes votos para destronar al presidente Slobodan Milosevic, cuyo gobierno aseguró falsamente que la oposición se había quedado corta.Ambas partes apelaron a los principios constitucionales, los procedimientos legales y, con furiosas protestas, a la voluntad del pueblo. Al final, una masa crítica de funcionarios del gobierno y de la policía, incluidos algunos en puestos necesarios para certificar el resultado, señalaron que, por razones que variaban de persona a persona, tratarían a Milosevic como el perdedor de las elecciones. Posteriormente, el nuevo gobierno lo extraditó para enfrentar cargos por crímenes de guerra en La Haya, en los Países Bajos.Slobodan Milosevic, expresidente de Yugoslavia, aplaudiendo durante una ceremonia en la academia militar de Belgrado, en 2000. Milosevic fue declarado perdedor de unas disputadas elecciones y posteriormente extraditado para ser acusado de crímenes de guerra en La Haya.Agence France-PresseLos estadounidenses parecieran tener más cosas en común con Perú. Allí, en 1992, el entonces presidente Alberto Fujimori disolvió el Congreso controlado por la oposición, que estaba haciendo gestiones para destituirlo. Los legisladores de todo el espectro votaron rápidamente para remplazar a Fujimori con su propio vicepresidente, quien se había opuesto al abuso de poder presidencial.Ambos bandos aseveraron estar defendiendo la democracia de la amenaza que representaba el otro. Ambos apelaron a las fuerzas militares de Perú, que tradicionalmente había desempeñado un rol de árbitro final, de forma casi similar al de una corte suprema. El pueblo, profundamente polarizado, se dividió. Los militares también se dividieron en dos bandos.En el momento más crítico, una cantidad suficiente de élites políticas y militares indicó su apoyo a Fujimori y logró que prevaleciera. Se juntaron de manera informal, cada uno reaccionando a los eventos de manera individual. Muchos apelaron a diferentes fines, como la agenda económica de Fujimori, la sensación de estabilidad o la posibilidad de que su partido prevaleciera bajo el nuevo orden.Perú cayó en un cuasi-autoritarismo, con derechos políticos restringidos y elecciones celebradas, pero bajo términos que favorecían a Fujimori, hasta que fue destituido de su cargo en 2000 por acusaciones de corrupción. El año pasado, su hija se postuló para la presidencia como una populista de derecha y perdió por menos de 50.000 votos.La América Latina moderna ha enfrentado repetidamente este tipo de crisis. Esto, según muchos académicos, no se debe tanto a rasgos culturales compartidos, sino más a una historia de intromisión de Guerra Fría que debilitó las normas democráticas. También surge de sistemas presidenciales de estilo estadounidense y de la profunda polarización social que allana el camino para el combate político extremo.Las democracias presidenciales, al dividir el poder entre ramas en competencia, crean más oportunidades para que cargos rivales se enfrenten, incluso hasta el punto de usurparse unos a otros los poderes. Dichos sistemas también enturbian las preguntas sobre quién está al mando, lo que obliga a sus ramas o poderes a resolver disputas de manera informal, sobre la marcha y, en ocasiones, por la fuerza.Venezuela, que solía ser la democracia más antigua de la región, sufrió una serie de crisis constitucionales cuando el entonces presidente Hugo Chávez se enfrentó con jueces y otros órganos gubernamentales que bloquearon su agenda. Cada vez, Chávez —y luego su sucesor, Nicolás Maduro— apeló a los principios legales y democráticos para justificar el debilitamiento de esas instituciones hasta que, con el tiempo, las acciones de los líderes, en apariencia para salvar la democracia, prácticamente las destriparon.Hugo Chávez, expresidente de Venezuela, llegando a la Asamblea Nacional para su discurso anual sobre el estado de la nación en Caracas, en 2012. Él y su sucesor apelaron a los principios legales y democráticos para justificar su debilitamiento de las instituciones democráticas.Ariana Cubillos/Associated PressLas presidencias no son comunes en las democracias occidentales. Una de las pocas, en Francia, experimentó su propia crisis constitucional en 1958, año en el que se evitó un intento de golpe militar cuando el líder Charles de Gaulle se otorgó poderes de emergencia para establecer un gobierno de unidad que satisficiera a los líderes civiles y militares.Si bien otros tipos de sistemas pueden caer en grandes crisis, a menudo se debe a que, al igual que en una democracia presidencial, los centros de poder en rivalidad chocan hasta el punto de intentar invadir al otro.Aun así, algunos académicos argumentan que los estadounidenses que esperan comprender la trayectoria de su país no deberían mirar a Europa, sino a América Latina.Ecuador estuvo cerca del precipicio en 2018 debido al esfuerzo del entonces presidente Rafael Correa de extender sus propios límites de mandato. Pero cuando los votantes y la élite política se opusieron, Correa dejó el cargo de manera voluntaria.En 2019, Bolivia se sumió en el caos en medio de una elección disputada. Aunque la opinión pública estuvo dividida, las élites políticas y militares señalaron que creían que el líder de izquierda en funciones en aquel momento, Evo Morales, debía dejar el cargo y prácticamente lo obligaron a hacerlo.Sin embargo, cuando el remplazo de derecha de Morales no pudo evitar meses de inestabilidad y turbulencia y luego se dispuso a posponer las elecciones, muchas de esas mismas élites presionaron para que estas se realizaran rápidamente, lo que benefició al sucesor elegido por Morales.Evo Morales, expresidente de Bolivia, hablando con la prensa el día de las elecciones en La Paz, en octubre de 2019. El país se sumió en el caos tras las elecciones, que fueron objeto de controversia.Martin Alipaz/EPA vía ShutterstockLa frase “élites políticas” puede evocar imágenes de poderosos que fuman puros y se reúnen en secreto para mover los hilos de la sociedad. En realidad, los académicos usan el término para describir a legisladores, jueces, burócratas, autoridades policiales y militares, funcionarios locales, líderes empresariales y figuras culturales, la mayoría de los cuales nunca coordinarían directamente, muchos menos acordarían qué es lo mejor para el país.Aun así, son esas élites las que, en colectivo, preservan la democracia día a día. Del mismo modo en que el papel moneda solo tiene valor porque todos lo tratamos como valioso, las elecciones y las leyes solo tienen poder porque las élites se despiertan cada mañana y las consideran primordiales. Es una especie de pacto, en el que los poderosos se vinculan voluntariamente a un sistema que también los restringe.“Una democracia organizada y en buen funcionamiento no nos exige pensar activamente en qué la sostiene”, me dijo Tom Pepinsky, politólogo de la Universidad Cornell, poco después de los disturbios en el Capitolio, el 6 de enero de 2021. “Es un equilibrio; todos están motivados a participar como si continuara”.Pero en una enorme crisis constitucional, cuando las normas y reglas destinadas a guiar la democracia se ponen en duda o se dejan de lado por completo, esas élites, súbitamente, se enfrentan a la pregunta de cómo —o si se debe— mantener su pacto democrático.No siempre estarán de acuerdo sobre cuál es el mejor camino para la democracia, para el país o para ellos mismos. En ocasiones, el impacto de ver la vulnerabilidad de la democracia los llevará a redoblar su compromiso con ella. En otras, a deshacerse de ese sistema en parte o en su totalidad.El resultado, a menudo, es una lucha de élites que se presionan entre sí directamente, como lo hicieron muchos republicanos de alto rango y asesores de la Casa Blanca durante el 6 de enero, o mediante declaraciones públicas dirigidas a los miles de funcionarios que operan la maquinaria del gobierno.Los académicos denominan esto como un “juego de coordinación”, en el que todos esos actores intentan comprender o influir en la manera en que otros responderán, hasta que surja un consenso mínimamente viable. Puede no parecerse tanto a una trama bien definida, sino más bien a una manada de animales asustados, por lo que el resultado puede ser difícil de predecir.Antes del 6 de enero, no había muchas razones para cuestionar el compromiso de los legisladores con la democracia. “No se había cuestionado si apoyaban o no la democracia en un sentido interno real; eso nunca había estado en juego”, afirmó Pepinsky.Ahora, una crisis los había obligado a decidir si anular las elecciones, y eso demostró que no todos esos legisladores, de tener esa opción, votarían para defender la democracia. “Me ha sorprendido demasiado cuánto de esto en realidad depende de 535 personas”, confesó Pepinsky, refiriéndose a la cantidad de legisladores en el Congreso.Max Fisher es reportero y columnista de temas internacionales con sede en Nueva York. Ha reportado sobre conflictos, diplomacia y cambio social desde cinco continentes. Es autor de The Interpreter, una columna que explora las ideas y el contexto detrás de los principales eventos mundiales de actualidad. @Max_Fisher • Facebook More