Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Russia Sets Date for Presidential Election

      by

      The winner of the contest is widely seen as a foregone conclusion: Vladimir V. Putin.Lawmakers in Russia on Thursday set March 17 as the date for the country’s next presidential election, launching a race that few doubt will result in President Vladimir V. Putin’s re-election for another six-year term.While the vote’s outcome is widely seen as a foregone conclusion in Russia, the campaign will take place under drastically different circumstances than the previous one in 2018.It will be the first presidential election since Mr. Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It also will be the first election since the passage of constitutional amendments in 2020 that allowed Mr. Putin, 71, to reset his term limit clock. (Some constitutional lawyers and experts still debate the legality of the reset.)The vote on Thursday in the Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, marked the formal start of the election campaign. Speaking before the vote, Valentina I. Matviyenko, the council’s speaker, gave a strong indication of who she thought would win.“Our people will confidently make the only right choice by casting their votes for Russia, victory, and a future in a strong and sovereign country,” said Ms. Matviyenko, referring to the priorities stated by Mr. Putin, even if she didn’t mention him by name.Mr. Putin is expected to announce his intention to run in the coming weeks, but some political parties rushed to endorse him on Thursday ahead of a formal declaration.Sergei M. Mironov, the leader of the Just Russia party, one of five represented in the Russian parliament, said his group was endorsing Mr. Putin, as did Vladimir A. Shamanov, a deputy from the ruling United Russia party.Ella A. Pamfilova, the head of Russia’s Central Electoral Commission, said the body would deliberate in the coming days about whether the vote would take place over a three-day period, instead of on one day — a more drawn out process that critics have said reduces transparency.The commission will also discuss whether the vote will be conducted in the areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia following the invasion, Ms. Pamfilova said.The presidential campaign got launched amid a period of intense diplomacy for Mr. Putin. On Wednesday, he made quick trips to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. On Thursday, he spoke to international investors, many of them from China and India, at a conference in Moscow. Later Thursday, he was scheduled to meet with President Ebrahim Raisi of Iran.Many parties and potential candidates have featured in previous elections, but this time, following the invasion of Ukraine, the political landscape is vastly different.Numerous outspoken critics of Mr. Putin and his policies have had to flee Russia. Aleksei A. Navalny, whose presidential bid was rejected by the Central Electoral Commission, is serving a lengthy prison term in a penal colony. On Thursday, Mr. Navalny’s political allies called on Russians to vote for any candidate other than Mr. Putin.“Putin has been terrorizing our country for 24 years,” said Ivan Y. Zhdanov, the director of Mr. Navalny’s anti-corruption foundation, in a video announcing the effort. “He plans to do it indefinitely.”So far, three Russian politicians have announced their intention to run against Mr. Putin.Boris B. Nadezhdin, a municipal deputy in a suburban town near Moscow, has said the end of the war was his top priority. Igor Girkin, a nationalist warlord and blogger currently in jail awaiting trial on extremism charges, has argued for a tougher approach in Ukraine. Yekaterina S. Duntsova, who also campaigns against the war, has garnered limited national appeal so far.In order to register as candidates, they must collect thousands of signatures from supporters, a requirement that can be a tough bar to overcome for opposition politicians in a country where opposition activity has been sharply curtailed by the state. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Inside Donald Trump’s Dominance of a Primary He Wasn’t Supposed to Win

      by

      Listen and follow ‘The Run-Up’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | AmazonDoug Mills/The New York TimesThere was a moment in early 2023 when Donald Trump seemed like a politician in decline.And it wasn’t just his political opponents who thought so. National Republicans, who blamed Mr. Trump for the party’s run of bad results in the midterms, largely agreed.But now it’s starting to set in: It appears the former president’s staying power was underestimated … again. Mr. Trump is the overwhelming favorite to be the Republican presidential nominee — and his supporters remain the most influential force in the party’s politics.This week, through conversations at an event with South Carolina Republicans, we try to understand why the party continues to back an embattled Mr. Trump — and how it came to feel as though this primary ended before it even began. Then, Astead talks with Jonathan Swan, a New York Times political reporter, about how the Trump team has approached this campaign with discipline and strategy, and what it is planning should he win back the White House.About ‘The Run-Up’“The Run-Up” is your guide to understanding the 2024 election. Through on-the-ground reporting and conversations with New York Times colleagues, newsmakers and voters across the country, our host, Astead W. Herndon, takes us beyond the horse race to explore how we got to this unprecedented moment in American politics. New episodes on Thursdays.Credits“The Run-Up” is hosted by More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela Orders Arrest of Top Opposition Figures on Treason

      by

      The move is the latest of several that undercut prospects of free elections next year, despite commitments made to the Biden administration in return for sanctions relief.Venezuela’s top prosecutor accused several top opposition figures of treason and ordered their arrest on Wednesday, the latest blow to prospects for credible elections that the government has agreed to hold next year in exchange for the lifting of crippling U.S. economic sanctions.The attorney general, Tarek William Saab, said that opponents of the leftist government had accepted money from ExxonMobil to sabotage President Nicolás Maduro’s recent referendum on annexing a large, oil-rich region in Guyana. The oil company could not immediately be reached for comment.Mr. Saab did not say what, specifically, the accused had done to thwart the referendum, but he said they would be charged with treason, conspiracy, money laundering and criminal association. He announced arrest warrants for 15 people, some of them prominent opposition members, including people who live abroad and two U.S. citizens.The Biden administration has tried to coax Venezuela into holding elections, relaxing some of the damaging American sanctions. In October, the government reached an agreement with the opposition on steps toward a vote, and it agreed last week that candidates who have been barred from running for office could appeal that penalty to the country’s top tribunal.But Mr. Maduro’s government has also repeatedly undercut the opposition’s ability to mount a meaningful challenge.More than 2.4 million Venezuelans voted in October in an opposition primary election for president, held without official government support. Since then, the government has questioned the primary’s legitimacy, has taken legal aim at its organizers and has barred the winner of the primary, María Corina Machado, from running for office for 15 years, claiming that she did not complete her declaration of assets and income when she was a legislator. Three of those Mr. Saab accused on Wednesday are members of Ms. Machado’s political party who live in Venezuela.Since Mr. Maduro took power in 2013, after the death of Hugo Chávez, the combination of growing oppression, rampant corruption and sanctions has made life much harder for ordinary Venezuelans, and millions have left the country. Under Mr. Maduro, international observers have called the country’s elections illegitimate.With the allegations of treason, President Biden must decide whether to continue betting that sanctions relief will persuade Mr. Maduro to allow a real vote, said Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow for Venezuela at the Atlantic Council.“I think Maduro is really forcing Biden’s hand here,” he said. “It’s become clear that he can’t win a free and fair election, so he needs Washington to snap back the sanctions to justify a crackdown that allows the regime to revert to the status quo.”On Sunday, Venezuela held a referendum, backed by Mr. Maduro, on whether to annex the Essequibo region in Guyana. Mr. Maduro has cast the issue as a fight with ExxonMobil, the American oil company that has a deal with the Guyanese government. His critics say the vote was no more than a bid to divert attention from his political troubles by stoking nationalist fervor.Jorge Rodriguez, president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, with a map on Wednesday showing Essequibo as part of Venezuela.Pedro Rances Mattey/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe government reported a vote of more than 95 percent in favor. Though political analysts, social media users and New York Times journalists reported sparse turnout, the government claimed that it was heavy, with 10.5 million ballots cast.“With the inflated vote numbers, they’ve just become a mockery,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior research fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, an international affairs research group in London. “Things really do seem to be falling apart.”The Essequibo region, with immense mineral and oil wealth but few people, is almost as large as Florida, taking up nearly three-quarters of the total area administered by Guyana. Venezuela and Britain both claimed it in the 19th century, and the dispute has continued since Guyana gained independence from Britain in 1966. The question is under consideration by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.At the same time that Mr. Saab was giving his news conference, Ms. Machado, a center-right former lawmaker, was holding one of her own at her party’s headquarters in Caracas, saying that the referendum had damaged the electoral authority’s credibility.As news of the charges and arrest orders spread on social media and through the room where Ms. Machado was speaking, her assistant pulled her campaign chief off the stage and whispered in her ear. Afterward, another party leader took the stage to say they were waiting for formal notice from the attorney general.The three party members who were charged left the headquarters without giving statements. They are the international relations coordinator, Pedro Urruchurtu; the political coordinator, Henry Alviarez, and the communications coordinator, Claudia Macero.The Americans accused by Mr. Saab are Damian Merlo, a consultant who has advised the authoritarian president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele; and Savoi Jandon Wright. Mr. Saab gave no information about Mr. Wright, except that he was already imprisoned in Venezuela. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Big Donors Rally Around Nikki Haley

      by

      The former governor of South Carolina is winning support from some Democrats and business-minded conservatives as the G.O.P. candidate who can beat Donald Trump.Nikki Haley is beginning to gain in the polls and has won financial backing from donors such as Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic donor, and the Koch brothers.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesA bipartisan boost for HaleyAs the four remaining prominent Republican presidential contenders not named Donald Trump assemble for the latest G.O.P. primary debate tonight, just one will arrive with any sort of positive momentum.Nikki Haley is gaining traction as the leading anti-Trump Republican, particularly among Democrats and business-minded conservatives alike. But growing support from elites may not be enough to help her catch the former president.Reid Hoffman recently donated $250,000 to a super PAC supporting Haley. The LinkedIn co-founder and a major Democratic donor has funded an array of anti-Trump initiatives. His donation, first reported by The Times, is the latest sign that some Democrats see bolstering Haley as the best way to beat Trump.News of Hoffman’s contribution came after Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s C.E.O., urged liberals to back Haley. “Get a choice on the Republican side that might be better than Trump,” he said at the DealBook Summit last week. That’s on top of growing support from business-minded Republicans. The political network founded by Charles and David Koch recently endorsed Haley, and deep-pocketed donors including Stanley Druckenmiller and Andy Sabin have attended fund-raising events for her.A reality check: Despite skipping all of the Republican primary debates and facing a staggering array of criminal and civil trials, Trump still leads Haley and the rest of the G.O.P. field in polls.And support from Democrats and corporate moguls may not endear Haley to the Republican base that will start voting on the G.O.P. candidate next month: A recent fund-raising email from Trump argued that “globalist special interest donors from both parties” are forging “an unholy alliance to beat us.”Other Republican contenders are faring even worse. The campaign of Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, is in turmoil. Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, barely qualified for the debate and faces calls to drop out to avoid fracturing the anti-Trump opposition. And Vivek Ramaswamy, the outspoken “anti-woke” entrepreneur, is fading in the polls.Some donors are just throwing up their hands. Marc Rowan, the C.E.O. of Apollo Global Management, said that the 2024 race would come down to President Biden and Trump. “Personally, I’m disappointed,” he told Bloomberg on Tuesday.In other 2024 news: Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming representative who vehemently opposes Trump, is weighing a third-party presidential run. And Biden said “I’m not sure I’d be running” for re-election were Trump not in the race for the White House.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING The Supreme Court appears wary of broadly disrupting the U.S. tax code. In oral arguments for Moore v. United States, a majority of justices seemed to favor narrowly upholding a Trump-era one-time tax on foreign income. Legal experts warned that a broad ruling could lead to a redefinition of income, potentially requiring major portions of American tax law to be rewritten.CVS will change how its pharmacies are paid for drugs. The nation’s biggest pharmacy chain said it would move to a system based on how much it pays for medicines, rather than the current model that involves complex formulas. CVS said the new arrangement would give more insight into drug pricing, but skeptics argued that it may not lead to lower costs for consumers.The N.C.A.A.’s president proposes uncapped compensation for college athletes. Charlie Baker suggested that top schools set aside educational trust funds of a minimum of $30,000 annually for at least half of their athletes, and raise compensation for women. The plan — which would take a long time to put in effect — is aimed at helping protect the N.C.A.A. from antitrust inquiries.Patrick McHenry, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, will retire. The North Carolina Republican, the first interim speaker and a champion of the crypto industry, said he wouldn’t seek re-election. Because of term limits, he wouldn’t be able to hold onto his chairmanship anyway, though his district will most likely remain in Republican hands.Bank bosses head to the Hill The heads of America’s biggest banks, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, are expected to go on the offensive on Wednesday at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, arguing that new regulation would help create further instability in the sector and harm borrowers.Capital rules will be in focus. Industry lobbying groups have pushed back in recent months against the so-called Basel III Endgame that would require banks to keep billions on their books as a backstop for potential losses. (Basel refers to the international banking standards committee.) The Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are among the regulators seeking higher capital requirements after the regional banking crisis set off by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.The hearing may be the bankers’ last best chance to push their case that the Basel proposal should be watered down or scrapped. In prepared remarks, Dimon said the proposal “would unjustifiably and unnecessarily increase capital requirements by 20-25 percent for the largest banks.” That would force lenders to pull back, creating “a harmful ripple effect on the economy, markets, businesses of all sizes and American households,” he said.The proposal would have an inflationary side effect, driving up the cost of credit for its clients, Solomon warned in his prepared remarks, which in turn “will likely get passed on to consumers.”The pushback comes as America’s lenders contend with a slew of challenges. High interest rates and a slowing economy have put the crimp on their core lending business. Banking watchdogs, meanwhile, remain concerned about lenders’ exposure to the pandemic-hit commercial real estate sector.Don’t expect progressive senators to be swayed. In a statement, the committee wrote that “while Wall Street banks argue that stronger rules to protect the public will be too expensive, they are actually making trillions of dollars in profits every year and paying C.E.O.s several hundred times more than their median workers.”Europe races to regulate A.I. The first big regulatory regime for artificial intelligence could be signed as early as Wednesday, with European Union lawmakers in the final stages of debating the A.I. Act. The rules wouldn’t take effect for 18 months, but they represent an effort by governments to catch up with the development of a transformative technology that has exploded into the public consciousness since the introduction of ChatGPT a year ago.Europe has long been one of the most aggressive tech regulators. From data privacy to tech sector M&A, the E.U. has often been ahead of others. But the fast pace of A.I. development is testing regulators’ ability to keep up. The A.I. Act was introduced in 2021, but the tech has advanced significantly during that time. Other governments are deliberating their own rules. President Biden issued an executive order in October focused on A.I. and national security; Japan is drafting nonbinding guidelines for the technology and China has imposed restrictions on certain types of A.I. Last month, Britain hosted an A.I. safety summit for tech leaders and policymakers that included the U.S. and China.E.U. lawmakers are trying to impose guardrails without killing innovation. Some say the rules need to address the underlying technology, and are pushing to stop the use of A.I. in biometric surveillance.But some member states want opt-out options. Last month, France, Germany and Italy came out against strict regulation of general-purpose A.I. models for fear of hurting domestic start-ups. Some member states also want exceptions for national security, defense and military purposes.The latest draft of the A.I. Act focuses on “high risk” uses, including law enforcement, school admissions and hiring. Some applications, like chatbots and software that creates manipulated images, will have to make clear to people that they are A.I.-generated. Congress takes on campus battles The presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania faced a congressional grilling on Tuesday over a growing wave of hate speech and antisemitism on their campuses that has angered some business leaders and prominent donors since the war in Gaza began in October.College leaders admitted to difficulties in confronting hate and preserving free speech. “I know that I have not always gotten it right,” Claudine Gay, Harvard’s president, told the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. She has come under intense pressure from influential professors, graduates and donors, including the former Treasury secretary Larry Summers and Pershing Square Capital Management’s Bill Ackman, to do more to protect students.After the hearing, Ackman called on all three to “resign in disgrace.” Summers said that Gay’s ideals were “just the right ones,” but that “there’s a lot of work to do.”Preserving students’ safety and civil rights has become a national focus. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights recently opened an investigation into complaints of antisemitism at Harvard. That came after a series of federal civil rights investigations into complaints of discrimination against students at some of America’s most prestigious universities, including Harvard, Penn and Columbia. Some schools have formed new task forces to address the growing concerns.The financial stakes are high. Schools that run afoul of civil rights laws could risk losing federal funding. Meanwhile, major university donors are using their clout to call attention to the rise of antisemitism on campus, pushing schools to do more to address the matter. These wealthy alumni are urging others to fight back, too.“We have our own war here in the U.S.,” Marc Rowan, the C.E.O. of Apollo Global Management, said at a recent fund-raiser. Rowan, who has criticized his alma mater, Penn, for its handling of antisemitism, renewed his call to hold the institutions accountable, “financially or otherwise.”THE SPEED READ DealsShares in British American Tobacco tumbled after the company announced a $31.5 billion write-down of its U.S. cigarette brands, six years after buying Reynolds American for $49 billion. (NYT)Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence start-up, xAI, filed to raise up to $1 billion in new capital. (The Verge)How Jeff Ubben’s second act, as an environmentally minded activist investor, fell apart. (FT)PolicyChina’s leader, Xi Jinping, is conducting a purge of the top ranks of the country’s political system, a move that could have implications for the global economy and regional stability. (Politico)A group of nuns that owns a stake in Smith & Wesson sued the gun maker, arguing that its sales and marketing strategy for the AR-15 rifle is putting shareholders’ investments at risk. (WSJ)Best of the restHollywood actors ratified their union’s labor deal with movie and television studios, but some had reservations about its guardrails on the use of artificial intelligence. (NYT)Israeli securities regulators said they found no trading abnormalities ahead of the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks, after researchers said they had found a spike in short-selling. (Bloomberg)Is it time to give up vinyl records in the name of climate change? (Guardian)We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley’s Path From Trump Critic to Defender and Back

      by

      When Nikki Haley was governor of South Carolina in 2016, she said she was appalled by Donald J. Trump’s threat to ban all Muslims from entering the United States should he become president. Ms. Haley, herself the child of Indian immigrants, called the pledge “absolutely un-American,” and part of a pattern of “unacceptable” comments and acts.Just two days after she joined Mr. Trump’s new administration in January 2017 as ambassador to the United Nations, she had to confront the issue anew. Mr. Trump barred travelers and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for 90 days.At a hastily called White House meeting, other senior administration officials objected, saying the prohibition would endanger refugees already en route to the United States and would hurt families of Iraqis who had long worked closely with the American military in that nation.“I don’t remember Nikki Haley saying anything,” said Kristie Kenney, then a top State Department official, who sat in on meeting. Six weeks later, in one of her first interviews as ambassador, Ms. Haley defended the ban, saying it was directed against countries with terrorist activity, not against Muslims.Now, as she tries to persuade Republican voters to cast Mr. Trump aside and hand her the mantle, Ms. Haley is reverting to her role as Trump critic. As her bid for the White House has picked up steam, she has warned voters that “we cannot have four years of chaos, vendettas and drama,” an obvious reference to his White House years. “America needs a captain who will steady the ship, not capsize it,” she added. Unlike Mr. Trump, she has said, she would not praise dictators and would “have the backs of our allies.”But when Ms. Haley had a chance to influence Mr. Trump, she chose her battles carefully. In interviews with more than a dozen former senior administration officials, most said that while Ms. Haley at times expressed her views frankly, they rarely witnessed her going to the mat, as some other senior aides did, to try to head off or moderate what they saw as Mr. Trump’s rash moves.Ms. Haley made herself a reliable defender of the president to the outside world, often trying to soften the edges of his most abrasive decisions. Privately, she carefully guarded what she later called her “amazingly good relationship” with Mr. Trump and avoided some of the internal fights that would have pitted her against him.“I don’t pick up the phone and say, ‘What are you doing?’” she said in an interview in March 2017, acknowledging that she was at times taken back by some of his public statements. “I just know that’s who he is.”Ms. Haley’s former colleagues could not recall her in the forefront of fights to keep Mr. Trump from imposing trade tariffs on American allies, or rushing into an unprecedented summit with North Korea’s dictator, or canceling America’s longstanding military exercises with South Korea, or banning Iraqis from entering the country. It fell mainly to others to defend NATO from Mr. Trump’s attacks, they said. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to describe internal deliberations.“I think that Haley understood, in an almost visceral way, the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the president,” said Thomas A. Shannon Jr., who served as under secretary of state for political affairs for the first half of Ms. Haley’s tenure. “She did not take on this job to do battle with the president.”Not everyone agrees that she held her fire. “Nikki Haley never pulled any punches with Donald Trump or with anybody,” said H.R. McMaster, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser from early 2017 to early 2018 and a key ally of Ms. Haley. “Oftentimes, she told him what he didn’t want to hear.”That is the impression Ms. Haley is trying to make with voters, as she casts herself as no-nonsense, no-drama alternative to Mr. Trump, who leads in polls in Iowa by some 30 percentage points. “If he was doing something wrong, I showed up in his office or I picked up the phone and said you cannot do this,” she said last week in Wolfeboro, N.H.Both Mr. McMaster and Ms. Haley point to her stance on Russia as evidence that she stood up to Trump. In her 2019 memoir on her U.N. tenure, Ms. Haley said she phoned the president directly to complain that he was overly deferential to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in a July 2018 meeting, telling him: “The Russians aren’t our friends.”Asked to point to other examples, her campaign did not respond. Nor did her aides answer questions about whether and how she used her influence with the president on a variety of issues that galvanized other senior administration officials.There were clear dividends to keeping Mr. Trump’s favor. The ambassadorship allowed Ms. Haley, who had never held office outside of South Carolina, to gain valuable foreign policy experience and to build the political brand that she now hopes will carry her to the White House.She also achieved a rare graceful exit from the administration, escaping the public insults the president rained on so many of his top aides. Instead, he praised her as “fantastic.”Staying on Trump’s Good SideMs. Haley has looked to cast herself as a no-drama alternative to Mr. Trump.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesMs. Haley’s position gave her the luxury of distance from some scorching White House debates. Other senior administration officials recalled sprinting to the Oval Office to try to forestall some of Mr. Trump’s orders. Stationed in New York, answering to a president who cared little about the United Nations, Ms. Haley was to some degree on the periphery.Nonetheless, she had unusually good access to the president. Mr. Trump had granted her wish to be seated on the National Security Council, over the objections of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to whom she ostensibly reported. And he took her calls, which former Trump aides described as frequent.Because the Trump White House operated in an unconventional fashion, often without the customary briefing papers and deliberate discussions, senior administration officials created unusual and shifting alliances in hopes of influencing the president. They tried to rope in like-minded officials, even on issues outside their portfolio.Several former senior administration officials said they did not view Ms. Haley as a useful ally in countering Mr. Trump because they thought she was unlikely to challenge the president directly. That was the case, they said, in the effort to keep Mr. Trump from imposing steel and aluminum tariffs against American allies like Canada. Gary D. Cohn, the White House economic adviser, led that fight, backed by a group that included Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Mr. McMaster, but not Ms. Haley.Nor was she central to the endeavor by other senior foreign policy advisers to take Iraq off the list of seven Muslim-majority nations covered by Mr. Trump’s travel ban. Mr. McMaster, Mr. Tillerson, Mr. Mattis and John F. Kelly, then head of homeland security, argued that the ban would punish Iraqis who for over a decade worked with the U.S. government to fight extremists.In a series of heated White House meetings, ending up in the Oval Office, they faced off against the White House advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, finally swaying the president to their side. While Mr. McMaster said Ms. Haley agreed Iraq should be dropped from the list, others who described those meetings make no mention of her.Guy Snodgrass, Mr. Mattis’s former chief speechwriter, said he knew of conversations in which the defense secretary and other senior officials discussed how best to influence the president. But he was not aware, he said, of any interaction with Ms. Haley or her staff.Ms. Haley was viewed as having shrewd political instincts — and also clear aspirations beyond the United Nations. Mr. Trump was wary of her ambitions, according to people familiar with his views. Some thought she tended carefully to her relationship with the president partly to safeguard them.“I thought she went out of the way not to take Trump on. Her objective, I thought, was to stay on his good side,” said John R. Bolton, who succeeded Mr. McMaster as national security adviser in March 2018.In her memoir, Ms. Haley recounted one instance, apparently in late 2017, when Mr. Tillerson and Mr. Kelly, then White House chief of staff, tried to enlist her support in holding the president in check. While they claimed that they needed to band together for the good of the country, she wrote, she saw them as disloyal.Ms. Haley later told Fox News that she reported the conversation to Mr. Trump and Mr. McMaster. Mr. McMaster said in an interview that she understood the importance of duty.Mr. Tillerson has denied ever trying to undermine the president. Mr. Kelly has said that he gave the president the best advice he could.Dealing With DictatorsMs. Haley called Mr. Trump to criticize his 2018 meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Helsinki.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMs. Haley has written that she agreed with most of Mr. Trump’s major policies, including his decisions to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and abandon the Paris climate accord. His posture toward Russia, however, was a steady source of friction.One former senior official said that the only times the president would become angry with Ms. Haley were when she criticized Mr. Putin in public, and that he would order his chief of staff to tell her to stop.Still, she called Mr. Trump to complain about his 2018 summit in Helsinki, where the president had ignited a bipartisan uproar by suggesting he believed Mr. Putin’s denials of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections over the assertions of U.S. intelligence agencies. “You made it sound like we were beholden to them,” she said she told him.Later that year, she persuaded the president to toughen up the administration’s talking points after Russian forces seized three Ukrainian naval ships and threatened to turn the Sea of Azov into a Russian lake, according to Mr. Bolton’s memoir.But even as she objected to Mr. Trump’s approach toward Mr. Putin, she has excused it. In her book, she wrote that she understood why he seemed to let Mr. Putin off the hook in Helsinki. “He was trying to keep communication open with Putin, just as he had with Kim Jong-un and Chinese President Xi Jinping,” she wrote, then went on to extol his ability to disarm people.Similarly, Ms. Haley suggested that Mr. Trump meant well when he praised Mr. Kim as a “talented” leader who “loves his people” and that he just didn’t understand how his words would be received.Since starting her campaign, Ms. Haley has said Mr. Trump “was too friendly” with Mr. Kim, “a thug and a tyrant” who has been “terrible to his people.” (One of Ms. Haley’s biggest accomplishments as ambassador was garnering support from Russia and China for a series of economic sanctions against North Korea after it conducted a battery of missile tests.)Mr. Trump himself has noticed her frequent oscillations: “Every time she criticizes me, she uncriticizes me about 15 minutes later,” he told Vanity Fair in late 2021. “I guess she gets the base,” referring to his popularity with Republican voters she is now courting.‘We Shouldn’t Have Followed Him’Ms. Haley had promised in early 2021 not to run against Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination.Samuel Corum for The New York TimesIn trying to explain why she is so much more critical of him now than before, Ms. Haley has said it is Mr. Trump who has changed, not her.As late as December 2020, after Mr. Trump lost the presidency to Joseph R. Biden Jr., Ms. Haley still took a forgiving stance toward him. She told Politico that although she spoke with Mr. Trump after the election, she did not urge him to concede because he sincerely believed he had won and couldn’t be convinced otherwise. It was a version of the “that’s who he is” argument she had made when she first joined his administration.Then, after his supporters ransacked the Capitol in January 2021, she told Politico there were no excuses for his behavior. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him,” she said.After she announced this February that she would run against him for the presidential nomination — after promising not to in early 2021 — a political action committee supporting Mr. Trump’s campaign characterized her as an opportunist, “only in it for herself.”Ms. Haley addressed that kind of criticism in an essay in The Wall Street Journal in 2021. She wrote that Mr. Trump had been a good president but had gone astray, and said she could not “defend the indefensible.”“If that means I want to have it ‘both ways,’” she added, “so be it.”Reporting was contributed by More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Wild Card in Taiwan’s Election: Frustrated Young Voters

      by

      An important bloc for the governing party, the island’s youth are focusing on bread-and-butter issues and have helped propel the rise of an insurgent party.In the months leading up to a pivotal presidential election for Taiwan, candidates have focused on who can best handle the island democracy’s volatile relationship with China, with its worries about the risks of war. But at a recent forum in Taipei, younger voters instead peppered two of the candidates with questions about everyday issues like rent, telecom scams and the voting age.It was a telling distillation of the race, the outcome of which will have far-reaching implications for Taiwan. The island is a potential flashpoint between the United States and China, which claims Taiwan as its territory and has signaled that it could escalate military threats if the Democratic Progressive Party wins.But many Taiwanese voters, especially those in their 20s and 30s, say they are weary of geopolitics and yearn for a campaign more focused on their needs at home. In interviews, they spoke of rising housing costs, slow income growth and narrowing career prospects. A considerable number expressed disillusionment with Taiwan’s two dominant parties, the governing Democratic Progressive Party and the opposition Nationalist Party.That sentiment has helped propel the rise of a third: the Taiwan People’s Party, an upstart that has gained traction in the polls partly by tapping into frustration over bread-and-butter issues, especially among younger people. The two main parties have also issued policy packages promising to address these anxieties.In interviews, younger voters voiced concerns about rising housing costs, slow income growth and narrowing career prospects. An Rong Xu for The New York TimesWhom young people ultimately vote for — and how many vote at all — could be a crucial factor in deciding the presidential election on Jan. 13. About 70 percent of Taiwanese in their 20s and 30s voted in the 2020 presidential election, a lower share than among middle-aged and older voters, according to official data. People ages 20 to 34 count for a fifth of Taiwan’s population, government estimates show.“We’re tired of the divisions and wars of words between political parties,” said Shen Chih-hsiang, a biotechnology student from Kaohsiung, a city in the south that is traditionally a stronghold of the Democratic Progressive Party. He remained undecided on whom to support.“Instead of worrying about the politics of major powers that are hard to change,” said Mr. Shen, 25, “I am more concerned about whether I can get a job and afford a house after graduation.”The frustrations voiced by Taiwan’s voters have highlighted some of the issues that the next administration will be under pressure to address. Taiwan is renowned for its cutting-edge semiconductor industry. But many younger workers at smaller companies earn relatively low incomes, and inflation can eat into any small pay increases. Housing prices have risen in many cities.Vice President Lai Ching-te, the Democratic Progressive Party’s candidate, has led in the polls for months. But his lead has narrowed over Hou Yu-ih, the candidate for the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang. Ko Wen-je, the candidate for the Taiwan People’s Party, has slipped in recent polls but could still play a decisive role by drawing youth votes that might have once gone to Mr. Lai’s party.Ko Wen-je, the candidate for the Taiwan People’s Party, at a news conference in Taipei last month. He has slipped in recent polls but could still play a decisive role by drawing youth votes.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesTo increase the chances of an opposition victory, Mr. Hou and Mr. Ko had briefly discussed forming an alliance. But the talks fell apart in a spectacular fashion late last month.“So much of this youth support for Ko Wen-je is really driven not by actual admiration for the man and his policies, but by frustration,” said Lev Nachman, a political science professor at National Chengchi University in Taipei. He cited focus group discussions he had with Taiwanese students.“This idea that the D.P.P. and K.M.T. are both equally bad seems to have taken hold among a lot of younger voters,” Professor Nachman said, referring to the two main parties.In a recent poll by My Formosa, an online magazine, 29 percent of respondents ages 20 to 29 said they supported Mr. Ko and his running mate, a fall from the previous survey, while 36 percent backed Mr. Lai. Other polls suggested a similar pattern, thought experts stressed those results could change in the final weeks of the race.The rumble of discontent did not mean that Taiwanese were dismissive about the risks of conflict with China, said Chang Yu-meng, the president of the Taiwan Youth Association for Democracy. The group had organized the presidential forum last month, where Mr. Lai and Mr. Ko answered questions from young voters.“I think young people are still highly concerned about international topics,” Mr. Chang said in an interview after the forum, citing relations with China as an example. “But apart from that, they are really concerned about a diversity of issues.”Chang Yu-meng, the president of the Taiwan Youth Association for Democracy, said young voters were concerned about a broad range of issues in addition to relations with China.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesWinning the election would be a watershed for the Democratic Progressive Party. Once a scrappy outsider, it was founded in 1986 as a wave of mass protests and democratic activism pushed the Nationalist Party to abandon authoritarian rule. Since Taiwan began direct presidential elections in 1996, no party has won more than two successive terms.The Democratic Progressive Party has tended to win most of the youth vote, but after two terms in power under President Tsai Ing-wen, it is no longer a fresh face. And many younger Taiwanese tend to see the opposition Nationalists as a party too caught in the past and too attached to China.“To young people in Taiwan now, the D.P.P. is the establishment,” said Shelley Rigger, a professor at Davidson College in North Carolina, who has long studied Taiwanese politics and conducted interviews with younger voters. “Whatever the D.P.P. was going to do for young people, they should have done by now. There’s a lot of youth dissatisfaction with the economy.”Mr. Ko, a surgeon and a former mayor of Taipei, has leaped into the space created by this discontent. He supported the Democratic Progressive Party earlier in his political ascent but formed the Taiwan People’s Party in 2019 as an alternative to the establishment. At rallies across the island, he has promised to solve housing and economic problems with a no-nonsense approach that he says he honed in hospital emergency wards. Mr. Ko and his supporters argue that he can also thaw relations with China.Jennifer Yo-yi Lee is one of the legislative candidates for the Taiwan People’s Party who is hoping to tap into voter frustration. “Young people are tired of the vicious battle between parties,” Ms. Lee said.Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times“Taiwan has been stagnant for too long, and it needs some changes,” said Hsieh Yu-ching, 20, who recently attended a youth rally held by Mr. Ko.Mr. Lai recently announced a series of youth policies, promising to improve the job opportunities and mitigate high housing costs. He also announced as his running mate Bi-khim Hsiao, who has been Taiwan’s representative in Washington for more than three years. Ms. Hsiao could lift enthusiasm for the Democratic Progressives, several experts said.“I also want to acknowledge the many domestic and social challenges that our young people are facing,” Ms. Hsiao said at a news conference last month. She promised to do more to address anxiety over jobs, housing and the environment.Vice President Lai Ching-te, the Democratic Progressive Party’s candidate, center left, announced as his running mate Bi-khim Hsiao, who has been Taiwan’s representative in Washington.Carlos Garcia Rawlins/ReutersThe parties all face the hurdle of coaxing voters to turn up at the ballot box. Taiwan’s minimum voting age, 20, is higher than in many other democracies, and people must vote where they are officially registered as residents. For some voters, especially younger ones, that means a long trip back to their hometowns.Millie Lin, who works at a technology company in Taipei and hails from Tainan, at the other end of the island, said she had not decided whether to go home to vote on Jan. 13.“When I see the struggles between political parties,” she said, “I sometimes feel that my vote can’t change anything.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      With Big State Victories, Modi Expands His Dominance in India

      by

      Results of voting for the governments of four Indian states showed gains for Mr. Modi’s ruling party, putting him in a strong position ahead of general elections in the spring.The ruling party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has tightened its grip over India’s populous northern belt, results of state elections showed Sunday, expanding its dominance of a key region ahead of general elections in which Mr. Modi is seeking a third term.The results of voting for the governments of four states, with a cumulative population of more than 240 million people, was another blow to the dwindling fortunes of the main opposition party, the Indian National Congress. The party, which ruled for a majority of India’s history as a republic, has struggled to claw its way back after Mr. Modi rose to national power in 2014.The Congress party was hoping to use the state elections to build momentum for national elections next spring, but instead lost all three states in which it was pitted against Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P.The B.J.P. managed to re-elect its government in Madhya Pradesh, with a bigger margin, and topple Congress in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. The only victory for Congress came against a smaller regional party in Telangana, in India’s south, where Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalist politics has faced resistance. The results of elections in a smaller fifth state, Mizoram, are expected on Monday, but the race there is between two smaller regional parties.“When the Congress goes up against the formidable organizational and electoral machinery of the B.J.P., burnished by Prime Minister Modi’s charisma, it collapses,” Arati Jerath, a New Delhi-based political analyst, said about the opposition’s performance in the north. “This is the B.J.P.’s big advantage in 2024.”While Indian elections trends could easily fluctuate in coming months, Ms. Jerath said the B.J.P.’s further consolidation of its support base, where its Hindu nationalist politics have taken strong root, puts it in a comfortable position ahead of the elections in the spring.Mr. Modi already has a big plan for further galvanizing his base of support: the inauguration in January of a massive Hindu temple in Ayodhya, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, that is being constructed on the site of a destroyed mosque. Demands for the construction of the temple helped turn Hindu nationalism into a major political movement in the 1990s and make the B.J.P. a national power.Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing the media in New Delhi, in September. The B.J.P.’s victories in the state elections put it in a comfortable position ahead of the elections in the spring.Adnan Abidi/ReutersThe state elections this month, while usually not a direct indication of how people vote in the general elections, were important in their timing. For the Congress party, it was seen as chance to show that it was getting its house in order, and regaining a winning touch.In the months before the elections, the Congress had scored a victory against the B.J.P. by winning the southern state of Karnataka, the cash-rich hub of the Indian tech industry. It also formed a national alliance, called INDIA, that included smaller and regional parties — an indication of its acceptance of an evident truth: that Congress cannot win a fight alone against Mr. Modi’s formidable B.J.P. and its considerable resources.Going into the state elections this month, however, the Congress decided to fight alone in states where it saw a good chance of victory against the B.J.P.The refusal of Congress to join together in these elections with the same parties it hopes to ally with in the national fight against Mr. Modi will diminish its standing in the eyes of those partners, analysts said.“It is going to be very difficult for them to put up a credible challenge against the B.J.P. in 2024,” said Rahul Verma, a fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. “Now I am not sure how the INDIA alliance is going to pan out.”In the three states where the B.J.P. and Congress went head to head, there was little to differentiate the parties, with both mainly focusing on handouts — from subsidized gas cylinders, to deposits for farmers and married women, to payments for books and school bags for students. Both parties faced voter fatigue, allegations of corruption and infighting in their state ranks.But to cover for its weakness, the B.J.P. had what the Congress has struggled to find, analysts said: ideological clarity and charismatic national leadership.The B.J.P stands clearly for Hindu nationalism and its divisive vision for turning India into a Hindu-first state. Mr. Modi, projecting himself as an ambitious champion of development as well as Hindu interests, also has a strong pull with voters across the country. His government has used the resources of the top-heavy and unequal Indian economy for well-targeted welfare schemes, handed out often in his name. In states where local B.J.P. leaders were struggling in the elections, it was Mr. Modi’s face on the posters; the handouts for voters were presented as “Modi’s guarantee.”In comparison, the Congress has struggled to present a leadership that can put up a fight against Mr. Modi, or a clear vision for its secular ideology. Mr. Modi’s effort to harness grassroots Hindu networks over the past decade and his firm grip over the national media have significantly shifted India’s secular mainstream, particularly in the country’s north.A rally for India’s Congress party in Hyderabad, India, on Tuesday. The Congress party was hoping to use the state elections to build momentum for next spring’s big national race, but instead lost all the three states where it was pitted against the Bharatiya Janata Party.Mahesh Kumar A./Associated PressRahul Gandhi, the Congress leader who would likely be its candidate for prime minister if the party wins in the spring, is often caricatured by Mr. Modi and his aides as entitled and a lightweight.While Mr. Gandhi has presented the Congress as standing for harmony and secularism against the divisive Hindu-first politics of Mr. Modi, that difference has not been projected clearly by officials at the state level.In the elections this month, Madhya Pradesh, with a population of more than 80 million, and which the B.J.P. had ruled for most of the past two decades, was seen as a major test of whether the Congress could use the B.J.P.’s weaknesses to score a victory.The B.J.P. government of the state had been accused by critics of widespread corruption, political infighting and causing communal tensions and riots with its Hindu-first policies.The Congress also accused the B.J.P. of using underhanded methods when in 2020 it toppled the Congress government that had come to power two years earlier with the help of smaller parties. The B.J.P. managed to take power that year by getting a number of Congress deputies to change sides.Despite the criticism, the B.J.P. still held on to Madhya Pradesh — and won about 50 more seats, according to the results on Sunday.“As a political party, as an organization, the B.J.P are much more agile and adaptive,” said Mr. Verma, the analyst. “They are ready to take bold moves, to experiment for winning at any cost.” More