More stories

  • in

    Elections and Disinformation Are Colliding Like Never Before in 2024

    A wave of elections coincides with state influence operations, a surge of extremism, A.I. advances and a pullback in social media protections.Billions of people will vote in major elections this year — around half of the global population, by some estimates — in one of the largest and most consequential democratic exercises in living memory. The results will affect how the world is run for decades to come.At the same time, false narratives and conspiracy theories have evolved into an increasingly global menace.Baseless claims of election fraud have battered trust in democracy. Foreign influence campaigns regularly target polarizing domestic challenges. Artificial intelligence has supercharged disinformation efforts and distorted perceptions of reality. All while major social media companies have scaled back their safeguards and downsized election teams.“Almost every democracy is under stress, independent of technology,” said Darrell M. West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank. “When you add disinformation on top of that, it just creates many opportunities for mischief.”It is, he said, a “perfect storm of disinformation.” More

  • in

    Why Iowa Turned So Red When Nearby States Went Blue

    With the Iowa caucuses six days away, politicians will be crisscrossing the state, blowing through small-town Pizza Ranches, filling high school gyms, and flipping pancakes at church breakfasts.What Iowans will not be seeing are Democrats. President Biden spoke Friday in Pennsylvania, and he and Vice President Kamala Harris both were in South Carolina over the weekend and on Monday. But Iowa, a state that once sizzled with bipartisan politics, launched Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 and seesawed between Republican and Democratic governors, has largely been ceded to the G.O.P. as part of a remarkable sorting of voters in the Upper Midwest.There is no single reason that over the past 15 years the Upper Midwest saw Iowa turn into a beacon of Donald J. Trump’s populism, North and South Dakota shed storied histories of prairie populism for a conservatism that reflected the national G.O.P., and Illinois and Minnesota move dramatically leftward. (Sandwiched in between, Wisconsin found an uncomfortable parity between its conservative rural counties and its more industrial and academic centers in Milwaukee and Madison.)No state in the nation swung as heavily Republican between 2012 and 2020 as Iowa, which went from a six-percentage-point victory for Barack Obama to an eight-point win for Mr. Trump in the last presidential election.Deindustrialization of rural reaches and the Mississippi River regions had its impact, as did the hollowing out of institutions, from civic organizations to small-town newspapers, that had given the Upper Midwest a character separate from national politics.Susan Laehn, an Iowa State University political scientist who lives in the small town of Jefferson, Iowa, recounted how an issue that once would have been handled through discussions at church or the Rotary Club instead became infected with national politics, with her husband, the libertarian Greene County attorney, stuck in the middle: New multicolored lighting installed last summer to illuminate the town’s carillon bell tower prompted an angry debate over L.G.B.T.Q. rights, leaving much of the town soured on identity politics that they largely blamed on the national left.Another issue: Brain drain. The movement of young college graduates out of Iowa and the Dakotas to the metropolises of Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul made a mark on the politics of all five states.Michael Dabe, a 19-year-old business and marketing major at the University of Dubuque, near the western bank of the Mississippi River, has found a comfortable home in Iowa, where life is slower and simpler than in his native Illinois and politics, he said, are more aligned with his conservative inclinations.But he expressed little doubt what he will be doing with his business degree once he graduates, and most of his classmates are likely to follow suit, he said.“There are just so many more opportunities in Chicago,” he said. “Politics are important to me, but job security, being able to raise a family more securely, is more important, for sure.”Michael Dabe, a freshman at the University of Dubuque, in his room at his parents’ home on Sunday. He expects to move to Chicago after graduation.Kayla Wolf for The New York TimesAn analysis in 2022 by economists at the University of North Carolina, the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago of data gleaned from LinkedIn showed how states with dynamic economic centers are luring college graduates from more rural states. Iowa loses 34.2 percent of its college graduates, worse than 40 of the 50 states, just below North Dakota, which loses 31.6 percent. Illinois, by contrast, gains 20 percent more college graduates than it produces. Minnesota has about 8 percent more than it produces.Even when young families look to move back to the rural areas they grew up in, they are often thwarted by an acute housing shortage, said Benjamin Winchester, a rural sociologist at the University of Minnesota extension in St. Cloud, Minn.; 75 percent of rural homeowners are baby boomers or older, and those older residents see boarded-up businesses and believe their communities’ best days are behind them, he said.As such older voters grow frustrated and more conservative, the trend is accelerating. Iowa, which had a congressional delegation split between two House Republicans, two House Democrats and two Republican senators in 2020, now has a government almost wholly under Republican control, which has enacted boldly conservative policies that ban almost all abortions and transition care for minors, publicly fund vouchers for private schools and pull books describing sexual acts from school libraries. (The library and abortion laws are now on hold in the courts.) The congressional delegation is now entirely Republican after a 2022 G.O.P. sweep in House races and the re-election of Senator Charles E. Grassley.Meantime on the east bank of the Mississippi, in Illinois, high-capacity semiautomatic rifles have been banned, the right to an abortion has been enshrined in law and recreational marijuana is legal. Upriver in Minnesota, pot is legal, unauthorized immigrants are getting driver’s licenses, and voting access for felons and teens is expanding.Such policy dichotomies are influencing the decisions of younger Iowans, said David Loebsack, a former Democratic House member from eastern Iowa.“These people are going, and I fear they’re going to keep going, given the policies that have been adopted,” he said.The politics of rural voters in the Upper Midwest may simply be catching up to other rural regions that turned conservative earlier, said Sam Rosenfeld, a political scientist at Colgate University and author of “The Polarizers,” a book on the architects of national polarization. Southern rural white voters turned sharply to the right in the 1960s and 1970s as Black southerners gained power with the civil rights movement and attendant legislation, he noted.But rural voters in the Upper Midwest, where few Black people lived, held on to a more diverse politics for decades longer. North Dakota, with its state bank, state grain mill and state grain elevator, has retained vestiges of a socialist past, when progressive politicians railed against rapacious businessmen from the Twin Cities. Even still, its politics have changed dramatically.“Until relatively recently, there was a Midwestern rural white voter who was distinct from a southern rural white voter,” Mr. Rosenfeld said. “There was a real progressive tradition in the Midwest uncoopted by Jim Crow and racial issues.”The rural reaches of Iowa now look politically similar to rural stretches in any state, from New York to Alabama to Oregon. And rural voters simply appreciated what Mr. Trump did for them, said Neil Shaffer, who chairs the Republican Party of Howard County, Iowa. Located along the Minnesota border, it was the only county in the nation to give both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump 20-percentage-point victories.Iowans like outsiders, and Mr. Obama’s charisma was winning, Mr. Shaffer said. But the self-employed farmers and small-business owners of Howard County were burdened by the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration’s regulation of fresh water runoff, and depressed commodity prices.There was skepticism of Mr. Trump and his abrasive, big-city behavior, Mr. Shaffer said, “but there’s that individual spirit in the Midwest that likes the Don Quixote railing against the big bad government, And people knew what they were getting.”Kyle D. Kondik of the University of Virginia Center for Politics explains polarization as a tale of the top half versus the bottom half of the population scale. If more than half a state’s vote comes from dominant metropolitan areas, as is the case in Illinois and Minnesota, states tend to be Democratic. If smaller, rural counties dominate, states tend to move right.Of the nine largest counties in Iowa, only one, Dubuque, switched from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump in 2016. President Biden’s margin in those counties in 2020 was only three percentage points lower than Mr. Obama’s winning 2012 margin.But Mr. Obama also carried 31 of the 90 smaller counties; Mr. Biden won none. As a group, Mr. Obama lost those rural counties by 2.5 percentage points to his Republican rival, Mitt Romney. Mr. Biden lost them to Mr. Trump by nearly 30 percentage points.Former President Barack Obama carried Iowa in 2008 and 2012, while President Biden lost it by 8 percentage points in 2020.Joshua Lott for The New York TimesMr. Kondik attributed some of that to Mr. Trump, whose anti-immigrant, protectionist policies diverged from traditional Republican positions. “He was a good fit for the Midwest,” he said.Laura Hubka, who co-chairs the Howard County Democrats, remembered high school students driving trucks around town in 2016 with large Trump flags. It felt intimidating, she said.“It was scary for a lot of people and scared a lot of Democrats inside,” Ms. Hubka said. “Trump spoke to a certain kind of people. People who felt like they were left behind.”Chased by the shifting politics, she said, at least one of her children now plans to move his family across the border to Minnesota.But the sweeping Republican victories in Iowa in 2022, when Mr. Trump was not on the ballot and the G.O.P. faltered in much of the country, point to other factors. Christopher Larimer, a political scientist at the University of Northern Iowa, again pointed to demographics. The huge groundswell of first-time 18-year-old voters who propelled Mr. Obama in 2008 were 22 and graduating college in 2012. By 2016, many of them had likely left the state, Mr. Larimer said.“I don’t know if Iowa is any different from anywhere else; it’s caught up in the nationalization of politics,” he said. “Young people are moving into the urban core, and that’s turning the outskirts more red.”If that urban core is in state, statewide results won’t change. If it is elsewhere, they will.Mr. Winchester, the rural sociologist, said the perception of rural decline is not reality; regional centers, like Bemidji, Minn., or Pella and Davenport, Iowa, are thriving, and even if small-town businesses have closed, housing in those towns is filled.But, he said, “many towns don’t know their place in the larger world. That concept of anomie, a sense of disconnection, is out there.”Gary Hillmer, a retired U.S. Agriculture Department soil conservationist in Hardin County, Iowa, has drifted away from his Republican roots and said he struggled to understand the views of his Trump-supporting neighbors in the farm country around Iowa Falls.“It’s hard to have a conversation with them to figure out why,” he said. “It’s frustrating, in that regard, because we ought to be able to talk to each other.”Charles Homans More

  • in

    Iowa Caucuses: What to Know With Less Than a Week to Go

    Donald Trump leads the polls by more than 30 points.Voters in Iowa are about to cast their ballots, and we’re back, ready to guide you through what promises to be an election year like no other.I’m Lisa Lerer, the founding writer of On Politics. As you’d expect at this time of year, I’m writing to you from chilly Des Moines, where I just outran some serious snow to cover the final week before the caucuses. Typically, this is a period of the political calendar known for drama. Candidates race across the state, attack ads flood local television and Casey’s general store does rapid business in breakfast pizza.This year is … not that, exactly. Donald Trump leads the polls by more than 30 points, despite visiting the state infrequently compared with his rivals. His expansive advantage has transformed the Iowa caucuses into a contest for second place. If none of Trump’s five rivals chip away at his lead, the caucuses could become more like an early coronation.But Iowa loves to surprise. Just ask former President Barack Obama, who delivered a crucial blow to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Or Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, who surged over the December holidays to win the contest that same year. Obviously, it didn’t work out that well for Huckabee, who lost the nomination to Senator John McCain.In fact, Iowa has a terrible record of picking the Republican Party nominee. In the seven contested Republican races since 1980, the Iowa winner has captured the party’s nomination only twice: Senator Bob Dole of Kansas in 1996 and Gov. George W. Bush of Texas in 2000. Even in competitive years, fewer than 200,000 Iowans typically participate in their party’s caucuses. That number could be even lower this year, given the subzero temperatures forecast for next Monday night.The race for secondAs often the case with Iowa, the stakes this year go beyond a simple victory. For Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, a strong second-place finish would catapult her campaign into the New Hampshire primary with the most coveted of political narratives: momentum.For Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, whose standing in the race has slipped, this is make-or-break. If he doesn’t come close to either Haley or Trump, it will become increasingly difficult for DeSantis to justify continuing his bid for the G.O.P. nomination.Trump’s speeches have focused on how he expects to roundly defeat President Biden in November. But in recent days, he has taken aim at Haley, accusing her of being “in the pocket” of “establishment donors,” and of being a “globalist,” my colleague Shane Goldmacher reported this weekend.Haley is threatening not only to eclipse DeSantis for second place in Iowa but also to compete with Trump in New Hampshire, where independent voters are giving her a lift in a state with an open primary. Trump’s new line of attack suggests his campaign sees Haley as a possible roadblock to its goal of quickly locking up the nomination. Watching from Wilmington, Del., is the Biden campaign. Publicly, Biden aides say they’re preparing to run against any of the Republicans in the field. But privately, they’re pretty confident Trump will be their general election opponent once again. Their argument echoes their pitch from four years ago, casting the election as a referendum on American democracy and fundamental freedoms like abortion rights.In Charleston today, Biden tried to rally support among Black voters with a fiery speech at the pulpit of the South’s oldest African Methodist Episcopal Church. My colleague Peter Baker reports that Biden linked Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election to the nation’s history of white supremacy, which he called “the old ghost in new garments.”One certainty of presidential politics: Past victories are no guarantee of future results. And this race promises to be a doozy. Biden, almost certain to be the Democratic nominee, would be the oldest presidential candidate in history. He’s widely unpopular, even among some key parts of his own coalition. The likely Republican nominee is facing 91 felony counts and is expected to pingpong through much of the election year from the campaign trail to the courthouse.We’re here to help make sense of it all. You’ll hear from us three times a week — Monday, Wednesday and Friday — delivering your dose of political news from a revolving crew of top political reporters at The New York Times. For the next few months, I’ll be sharing this newsletter with my colleagues on the politics desk, including Reid Epstein, Adam Nagourney and Katie Glueck.Before we close this very first newsletter of 2024, I would like to remember Blake Hounshell, our irrepressible and brilliant colleague who last helmed this newsletter and died last year at the age of 44. We miss him very much, and know he would have been as riveted by this campaign as we are.With that, dear readers, I invite you to join us on this journey. Get ready: It’s gonna be a rocky ride.Attendees prayed during an event held by former President Donald Trump’s campaign in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in December.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesA different kind of evangelical voterWhite evangelical Christian voters have lined up behind Republican candidates for decades. But evangelicals are not exactly who they used to be.Today, being evangelical is often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Donald Trump looms large.“Politics has become the master identity,” said Ryan Burge, an associate professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University and a Baptist pastor. “Everything else lines up behind partisanship.”The Republican caucuses in Iowa will be a test of how fully Trump continues to own that identity. Among his rivals, Ron DeSantis has invested most heavily in courting Iowa evangelicals, securing the support of prominent leaders and emphasizing his hard-line bona fides on abortion. In early December, Trump had a 25-point lead over DeSantis among evangelical voters, according to a Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa Poll.Karen Johnson identifies as an evangelical Christian, but doesn’t believe going to church is necessary. “I have my own little thing with the Lord,” she says.Johnson’s thing includes podcasts and YouTube channels that discuss politics and “what’s going on in the world” from a right-wing, and sometimes Christian, worldview. No one plays a more central role in her perspective than Trump. She believes he can defeat the Democrats who, she is certain, are destroying the country.“Trump is our David and our Goliath,” Johnson said recently as she waited outside a hotel in eastern Iowa to hear the former president speak. — Ruth Graham and Charles HomansRead the full story here.More politics news and analysisShutdown watch: The far right balks as Congress begins a push to enact a spending deal.Protests: Demonstrators interrupted Biden’s South Carolina speech.Weather update: A snowstorm in Iowa is hindering Republicans’ campaign plans.Deep red: Once a competitive swing state, Iowa is now a Republican stronghold.Need to know: The Pentagon is under pressure to explain the hospitalization of Defense Secretary Lloyd AustinOusted: The Republican Party of Florida voted out its chairman, who is facing a criminal sexual-assault investigation.Job switch: Mitch Landrieu, the White House infrastructure coordinator, is stepping down to help lead the president’s re-election campaign.Find more live coverage and reporter updates here.The scanNikki Haley avoided controversy for months — but not anymore, The Washington Post reports.The shifting congressional map is complicating the election, Politico reports.Michelle Obama says she’s terrified about the outcome of the 2024 election, CNN reports.Ask us a questionOur team is answering your questions about this presidential election year. No question is too big, small or basic, so ask away by filling out this form. We may feature your question in an upcoming newsletter. More

  • in

    Send Us Your Questions About the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election

    Got a query, or just curious about the election? The On Politics newsletter team can help: We’re answering reader questions.If you’re wondering: What’s the difference between a caucus and a primary? How does the Electoral College work, again? Which important voting deadlines should be on my calendar?Fear not — the On Politics team is here to help. We will help you make sense of this election year and all of its nuances, so send your questions our way. No query is too big, too small or too basic.We might use what you send us in an upcoming newsletter. We won’t share your response with anyone outside our newsroom, or use your contact information beyond following up with you. And we won’t publish your submission without first contacting you to verify that your information and your response are accurate. More

  • in

    Pakistani Justices Reject Ban for Politicians With Past Convictions

    The decision by the Supreme Court paves the way for a former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, to run in parliamentary elections in February.Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Monday overturned a law that barred politicians with past convictions from seeking political office, in a move that paves the way for former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to run in parliamentary elections in February.A seven-justice panel of the country’s top court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, ruled 6-1 that a person could not be banned for life from running for office. The court said instead that politicians could be barred for a term of only five years.Critics had said that the law was draconian and used for political persecution.Mr. Sharif, a three-time former prime minister, was disqualified from running for office for life in 2017. He never finished any of his terms in office, running afoul of the country’s powerful military or, in the latest case, being toppled by corruption allegations.Mr. Sharif left Pakistan for London in 2019 but returned in October to revive his political career and to take part in the Feb. 8 general elections. Marriyum Aurangzeb, the central information secretary for the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz, Mr. Sharif’s political party, hailed the decision as a “vindication” for Mr. Sharif.Ms. Aurangzeb said that Mr. Sharif had been a victim of political persecution. “Only the people of Pakistan have the power through their vote to qualify or disqualify their representatives,” she said.As the country heads for elections early next month, the atmosphere in the country is tense. Pakistan has been reeling from a political and economic crisis since April 2022, when former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who remains widely popular, was removed from power by a vote of no confidence of Parliament after having lost the support of the powerful military establishment.Mr. Khan is in jail on several charges, including treason, and candidates from his party are complaining of being denied a level playing field and the right to freely campaign. His party members have accused the state authorities of intimidation, harassment and unwarranted arrests.Supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan shouting slogans demanding his release during a protest in Karachi in August.Shahzaib Akber/EPA, via ShutterstockThe major political parties have not actively hit the campaign trail, and no big political rallies have been held so far, partly because of uncertainty about the polls and partly because of security fears. Militant attacks have also picked up in the country in recent months.On Jan. 3, Mohsin Dawar, a prominent politician belonging to the National Democratic Movement political party, escaped an assassination attempt after his convoy came under attack in the North Waziristan region in the country’s northwest. Mr. Dawar’s bulletproof vehicle was hit on its front and side mirrors, though he remained safe. There was no claim of responsibility for the attack.Last week, the country’s senate passed a resolution calling for a delay in the election, citing security concerns. The resolution was passed by a group of independent senators.But government officials stressed that there would be no delay or postponement.“The elections will be held on Feb. 8, as scheduled,” said Murtaza Solangi, the interim information minister. More

  • in

    Donald Trump Is Connecting With a Different Type of Evangelical Voter

    They are not just the churchgoing, conservative activists who once dominated the G.O.P.Karen Johnson went to her Lutheran church so regularly as a child that she won a perfect attendance award. As an adult, she taught Sunday school. But these days, Ms. Johnson, a 67-year-old counter attendant at a slot-machine parlor, no longer goes to church.She still identifies as an evangelical Christian, but she doesn’t believe going to church is necessary to commune with God. “I have my own little thing with the Lord,” she says.Ms. Johnson’s thing includes frequent prayer, she said, as well as podcasts and YouTube channels that discuss politics and “what’s going on in the world” from a right-wing, and sometimes Christian, worldview. No one plays a more central role in her perspective than Donald J. Trump, the man she believes can defeat the Democrats who, she is certain, are destroying the country and bound for hell.“Trump is our David and our Goliath,” Ms. Johnson said recently as she waited outside a hotel in eastern Iowa to hear the former president speak.Karen Johnson went to church regularly as a child and taught Sunday school as an adult, but, despite identifying as an evangelical Christian, she does not attend church anymore.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesWhite evangelical Christian voters have lined up behind Republican candidates for decades, driving conservative cultural issues into the heart of the party’s politics and making nominees and presidents of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Is Trump an Agent or an Accident of History?

    In Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels, a “psychohistorian” in a far-flung galactic empire figures out a way to predict the future so exactly that he can anticipate both the empire’s fall and the way that civilization can be painstakingly rebuilt. This enables him to plan a project — the “foundation” of the title — that will long outlast his death, complete with periodic messages to his heirs that always show foreknowledge of their challenges and crises.Until one day the foreknowledge fails, because an inherently unpredictable figure has come upon the scene — the Mule, a Napoleon of galactic politics, whose advent was hard for even a psychohistorian to see coming because he’s literally a mutant, graced by some genetic twist with the power of telepathy.Donald Trump is not a mutant telepath. (Or so I assume — fact checkers are still at work.) But the debates about how to deal with his challenge to the American political system turn, in part, on how much you think that he resembles Asimov’s Mule.Was there a more normal, conventional, stable-seeming timeline for 21st century American politics that Trump, with his unique blend of tabloid celebrity, reality-TV charisma, personal shamelessness and demagogic intuition, somehow wrenched us off?Or is Trump just an American expression of the trends that have revived nationalism all over the world, precisely the sort of figure a “psychohistory” of our era would have anticipated? In which case, are attempts to find some elite removal mechanism likely to just heighten the contradictions that yielded Trumpism in the first place, widening the gyre and bringing the rough beast slouching in much faster?I have basically changed sides in this debate. Into the early part of Trump’s presidency I was an apologist for elite machinations: I wanted party unity against his primary candidacy, a convention rebellion against his nomination, even a 25th Amendment option when he appeared initially overmastered by the office of the presidency.Past a certain point, though, I became convinced that these efforts were not only vain but counterproductive. In part, this reflected strategic considerations: The plausible moment for unified intraparty resistance had passed, and the united front of elite institutions had failed spectacularly to prevent Trump from capturing the White House. In part it reflected my sense that “Resistance” politics were driving liberal institutions deep into their own kind of paranoia and conspiracism.But above all my shift reflected a reading of our times as increasingly and ineradicably populist, permanently Trumpy in some sense, with inescapable conflicts between insider and outsider factions, institutionalists and rebels — conflicts that seemed likely to worsen the more that insider power plays cement the populist belief that the outsiders would never be allowed to truly govern.This shift doesn’t mean, however, that I am immune to the arguments that still treat Trump as unique, even Mule-ish, with a capacity for chaos unequaled by any other populist. You can see this distinctiveness in the failures of various Republican candidates who have tried to ape his style. And you can reasonably doubt that a different populist would have gone all the way to the disgrace of Jan. 6 — or inspired as many followers.So as much as I find the legal case for the 14th Amendment disqualification entirely unpersuasive, I can almost make myself see the return-to-normalcy future that some of its advocates seem to be imagining.Start with a 7-to-2 decision, maybe written by Brett Kavanaugh, disqualifying Trump. Then comes a lot of ranting and rage that mostly works itself out online. Then a sense of relief among Republican officeholders who move on to a Nikki Haley vs. Ron DeSantis primary. Then various Trump-backed spoiler-ish and third-party options emerge but fizzle out. Then, quite possibly, you have a DeSantis or Haley presidency — in which partisan loyalty binds Republicans to their new leader, and an aging Trump eventually fades away.I will concede to partisans of disqualification that such a scenario is theoretically possible. I certainly would find some versions of it eminently desirable. (My fears about a Haley presidency I will save for a future column.)But what I would ask them in turn is whether, having lived through the last eight years of not just American but global politics, they actually find it likely that normalcy will be restored through this kind of expedient — a judicial fiat that millions of Americans will immediately regard as the most illegitimate governmental action of their lifetimes?What odds would they give that future historians, reflecting on our republic’s storms the way we now reflect on ancient Rome, will memorialize such an action as the moment when the seas began to calm?As opposed to what seems so much more likely — that it would eventually produce some further populist escalation, every-deepening division, not peace but the sword.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

  • in

    Playing for Time, U.K. Leader Sets Up Chance of U.S. Election Overlap

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak signaled that voters will go to the polls in the fall, around the time that the United States will be in the midst of its own pivotal vote.When Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said this week that he was not likely to call a general election in Britain before the second half of the year, he was trying to douse fevered speculation that he might go to the voters as early as May. But in doing so, he set up another tantalizing prospect: that Britain and the United States could hold elections within days or weeks of each other this fall.The last time parliamentary and presidential elections coincided was in 1964, when Britain’s Labour Party ousted the long-governing Conservatives in October, and less than a month later, a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, swept aside a challenge from a right-wing Republican insurgent. The parallels to today are not lost on the excitable denizens of Britain’s political class.“It’s the stuff of gossip around London dinner tables already,” said Kim Darroch, a former British ambassador to Washington who is now a member of the House of Lords. For all the Côte du Rhône-fueled analysis, Mr. Darroch conceded, “it’s hard to reach any kind of conclusion about what it means.”That doesn’t mean political soothsayers, amateur and professional, aren’t giving it a go. Some argue that a victory by the Republican front-runner, Donald J. Trump, over President Biden — or even the prospect of one — would be so alarming that it would scare voters in Britain into sticking with Mr. Sunak’s Conservative Party, as a bid for predictability and continuity in an uncertain world.A supporter of Donald J. Trump laying out signs on Tuesday before an event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesOthers argue that the Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, could win over voters by reminding them of the ideological kinship between the Conservatives and Mr. Trump, who remains deeply unpopular in Britain. Mr. Trump praised Mr. Sunak last fall for saying he wanted to water down some of Britain’s ambitious climate goals. “I always knew Sunak was smart,” Mr. Trump posted on his Truth Social account.Still others pooh-pooh the suggestion that British voters would make decisions at the ballot box based on the political direction of another country, even one as close and influential as the United States. Britain’s election, analysts say, is likely to be decided by domestic concerns like the cost-of-living crisis, home-mortgage rates, immigration and the dilapidated state of the National Health Service.And yet, even the skeptics of any direct effect acknowledge that near-simultaneous elections could cause ripples on both sides of the pond, given how Britain and the United States often seem to operate under the same political weather system. Britain’s vote to leave the European Union in June 2016 is often viewed as a canary in the coal mine for Mr. Trump’s victory the following November.Already, the campaigns in both countries are beginning to echo each other, with fiery debates about immigration; the integrity — or otherwise — of political leaders; and social and cultural quarrels, from racial justice to the rights of transgender people. Those themes will be amplified as they reverberate across the ocean, with the American election forming a supersized backdrop to the British campaign.“The U.S. election will receive a huge amount of attention in the run-up to the U.K. election,” said Ben Ansell, a professor of comparative democratic institutions at Oxford University. “If the Tories run a culture-war campaign, and people are being fed a diet of wall-to-wall populism because of Trump, that could backfire on them.”Some argue that if the elections coincide, Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, could win over voters by reminding them of the similarities between the Conservatives and Mr. Trump.Justin Tallis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesProfessor Ansell identified another risk in the political synchronicity: it could magnify the damage of a disinformation campaign waged by a hostile foreign power, such as the efforts by Russian agents in Britain before the Brexit vote, and in the United States before the 2016 presidential election. “It’s a two-for-one,” he said, noting that both countries remain divided and vulnerable to such manipulation.On Thursday, Mr. Starmer appealed to Britons to move past the fury and divisiveness of the Brexit debates, promising “a politics that treads a little lighter on all of our lives.” That was reminiscent of Mr. Biden’s call in his 2021 inaugural address to “join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature.”Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who studied at Oxford and has advised Conservative Party officials, said he warned the Tories not to turn their campaign into a culture war. “It will get you votes, but it will destroy the electorate in the process,” he said he told them, pointing out that a campaign against “woke” issues had not helped Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida dislodge Mr. Trump.Mr. Sunak has vacillated in recent months between a hard-edge and more centrist approach as his party has struggled to get traction with voters. It currently lags Labour by 20 percentage points in most polls. While general elections are frequently held in the spring, Mr. Sunak appears to be playing for time in the hope that his fortunes will improve. That has drawn criticism from Mr. Starmer, who accused him of “squatting” in 10 Downing Street.“I’ve got lots that I want to get on with,” Mr. Sunak told reporters Thursday. He could wait until next January to hold a vote, though analysts say that was unlikely, since campaigning over the Christmas holiday would likely alienate voters and discourage party activists from canvassing door to door.Counting votes in Bath, England, during the U.K.’s last general election in 2019.Ian Walton/ReutersWith summer out for the same reason, Mr. Sunak’s most likely options are October or November (Americans will vote on Nov. 5). There are arguments for choosing either month, including that party conferences are traditionally held in early October.In October 1964, the Conservative government, led by Alec Douglas-Home, narrowly lost to Labour, led by Harold Wilson. Like Mr. Douglas-Home, Mr. Sunak is presiding over a party in power for more than 13 years. The following month, President Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater, the hard-right Republican senator from Arizona, who had declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”Sixty years ago, the Atlantic was a greater divide than it is today, and the links between trans-Atlantic elections more tenuous than they are now. Mr. Trump, armed with a social media account and a penchant for lines even more provocative than Mr. Goldwater’s, could easily roil the British campaign, analysts said.And a Trump victory, they added, would pose a devilish challenge to either future British leader. While Mr. Trump treated Mr. Sunak’s predecessor, Boris Johnson, as an ideological twin, he fell out bitterly with Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, and there was little reason, they said, to hope for less drama in a second Trump term.The biggest pre-election danger — much more likely for Mr. Sunak than for Mr. Starmer, given their politics — is that Mr. Trump will make a formal endorsement, either while he is the Republican nominee or newly elected as president, said Timothy Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London.“Given how negatively most Brits feel toward Trump,” Professor Bale said, “such an endorsement is unlikely to play well for whichever of the two is unlucky enough to find favor with him.” More