Polls and Public Opinion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Talking to Voters From Both Parties

      by

      More from our inbox:The Legality of a Vaccine Mandate for Businesses‘What Can Marriage Give Us?’  Mark Peterson for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “What Voters Really Think About the State of America” (Opinion, Jan. 8):The most upsetting article I’ve read recently regarding the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and its aftermath is the report on the focus groups’ comments about the state of America. I was familiar with polls showing that a majority of Republican voters believe the lies told by Donald Trump and echoed by elected officials and television activists like Tucker Carlson.But it is distressing to read that six of the eight Republicans in the focus group still believe that Mr. Trump won the election. And it is mind-blowing to read their comments about “how the Democrats invaded the White House” and were pushing Covid to keep mail-in ballots.The lies must be refuted loudly and continuously. Responsible media should give no airtime or newspaper space to anyone who does not first admit that the 2020 election was fair and the results were properly counted. Until the rank and file learn that our election was fair and honest and worked as it should, the “state of America” will remain in jeopardy.Roy GoldmanJacksonville Beach, Fla.To the Editor:I am an independent voter, and have been in my 60 years of voting. I was not too surprised at the outcomes of your two focus groups. I have many friends and family who are registered Democrats or Republicans and know their opinions all too well. I would have been interested in a third group of independent voters. Maybe in the future you can incorporate this growing and important group of voters.Linda L. HortonAlbuquerqueEditors’ Note: Times Opinion plans to convene additional focus groups; the next will be with independent voters.To the Editor:I understand the purpose of your giving an opinion page over to average (whatever that means) Democrats and Republicans, but I nonetheless believe that The Times has missed the mark in doing so.The purpose of journalism is not to be evenhanded or to give equal size megaphones to “both sides.” The purpose of journalism is to tell the truth. Clearly one side is by and large telling the truth, whereas the other side appears quite delusional. And it’s telling that I don’t have to state which is which for people to know what I mean.The Times can and should do better for its readers.Jonathan EngelNew YorkTo the Editor:If these interviews are supposed to help me understand the thinking of Republicans, you’ve failed.Reading what they think just made me angry — again! How some of them came up with their responses is totally beyond me, except I know they have unquestioningly accepted lies. That is what is frustrating, to hear those lies repeated over and over without any attempt on their part to use critical thinking.My stomach is churning and I’m sure my blood pressure has peaked. I can live, just barely, with the horrible mess the world is in, but I don’t need any help with my despair!Sara JoslinNew Cumberland, Pa.The Legality of a Vaccine Mandate for Businesses Jim Wilson/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Top Court Leans Toward Blocking Vaccine Mandate” (front page, Jan. 8):Certain Supreme Court justices appear skeptical regarding the constitutionality of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for certain businesses. We should remember, however, that the court is not ruling on the constitutionality of that mandate, only on whether it should issue an injunction to prevent its being enforced while its constitutionality is being decided.In making a decision on whether an injunction should be issued, the justices would naturally want to consider the harm of issuing an injunction versus the harm of not issuing an injunction.Suppose they decided not to issue an injunction. What’s the worst that might happen? Well, some people who may not want to be vaccinated may get the lifesaving vaccine anyway.And if they do issue the injunction? Well, some people who do not want to be vaccinated may die.Seems pretty clear-cut to me.Stephen PolitBelmont, Mass.To the Editor:Dear Chief Justice Roberts,I respect the principle that limits on decision-making by federal agencies can be necessary and protective. This principle would be a vital response to an overly authoritarian executive branch.I urge you to uphold this principle — while making an exception for vaccine mandates.To return this national health issue to individual states and Congress — at this time of medical crisis and excessive cultural divide — will further politicize and undermine our nation’s ability to respond to this public health issue in a unified manner.Principles are vitally important. But wise and flexible leadership requires appropriate exceptions.Jared D. KassConcord, Mass.‘What Can Marriage Give Us?’  María MedemTo the Editor:Re “Divorce Doesn’t Have to Be Lonely,” by Kaitlyn Greenidge (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, Jan. 9):A widow of nine years after five decades of marriage, I know that you can go it alone. Not everyone needs to marry. But I ask, What can marriage give us? As an introvert and a writer, I prized private time. Marriage required compromise and working out problems instead of walking out.We had counseling several times, at which I learned that my little ego was as precious as his. Only in a relationship could I have learned how best to live in our world of rugged individualists. I assert myself more confidently, but also listen better.Diana MorleyTalent, Ore. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Idea of American Decay

      by

      Did the Capitol riot make the belief in American democratic decline mainstream?From “The Daily” newsletter: One big idea on the news, from the team that brings you “The Daily” podcast. You can sign up for the newsletter here.The idea that America is in decline isn’t new.For decades, academics have warned that partisan gridlock, politicized courts and unfettered lobbying were like dangerous substances — if taken in excess, America’s democratic systems were at risk of collapse.But what happens when the idea itself gets mainlined? When words like “died,” “decline” and “dagger” sit near “America” on front pages across the country? When a majority of the American public rewrites the story they tell themselves about their country’s standing in the world?That’s what some experts say is happening now — that the Capitol riot and its aftermath have normalized a sense among Americans that the country, its economic system and its standing in the world are in decline. New data supports this claim: 70 percent of Americans believe the U.S. is “in crisis and at risk of failing,” according to a recent poll.As you heard in today’s episode, fortifying America’s democracy is not just about ensuring the trustworthiness of elections, but also about safeguarding Americans’ belief in the possibility of change. So we wanted to dive deeper on the latter and ask: What happens when that self-conception falters — when Americans begin to believe their country isn’t winning, but instead is losing a long battle?A fractured collective narrative at home“Jan. 6 and then the Republican reaction is a really important turning point in the perception of American decline,” said Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist and author. Mr. Fukuyama noted said that while he had been writing about American political decay for years, the concept had assumed more systemic import after the Capitol riots — and wider acceptance.Just a few years ago, a majority of Americans believed the U.S. was one of the greatest nations in the world. In a Pew Research survey from 2017, 85 percent of respondents said either that the U.S. “stands above all other countries in the world” or that it is “one of the greatest countries, along with some others.” Additionally, 58 percent of those surveyed said the American democracy was working “somewhat” or “very well.”“Prior to the rise of all this populism,” Mr. Fukuyama said, “there was a basic progressive narrative to American history. And that was based on a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that were flexible enough to be modified over time to be made more inclusive.”“This American narrative that has held us together, it doesn’t hold anymore,” he said, adding that the riot, “more than anything that happened during the Trump presidency, I think does underline that.”Now, nearly two-thirds of respondents in the NPR/Ipsos poll agreed that U.S. democracy is “more at risk” now than it was a year ago. Among Republicans, that number climbs to four in five. This narrative persists on both sides of the political spectrum — with each side pointing the finger at the other as a threat to the nation’s well-being. It’s also a narrative that has direct effects on American democracy — polarizing partisanship on national and local levels, affecting critical legislative functions like passing budgets and limiting social consensus-building in response to crises like Covid.Understand the Jan. 6 InvestigationBoth the Justice Department and a House select committee are investigating the events of the Capitol riot. Here’s where they stand:Inside the House Inquiry: From a nondescript office building, the panel has been quietly ramping up its sprawling and elaborate investigation.Criminal Referrals, Explained: Can the House inquiry end in criminal charges? These are some of the issues confronting the committee.Garland’s Remarks: Facing pressure from Democrats, Attorney General Merrick Garland vowed that the D.O.J. would pursue its inquiry into the riot “at any level.”A Big Question Remains: Will the Justice Department move beyond charging the rioters themselves?In light of these varied crises, “what is most striking is not what has changed but what has not,” Peter Baker, The Times’s chief White House correspondent, wrote on the anniversary of the Capitol Riots. “America has not come together to defend its democracy; it has only split further apart.”It is this growing chasm that some political theorists say will be most difficult to reconcile in the interest of shoring up America’s democratic institutions.“We have two Americas,” James Morone, a professor of political science at Brown University, said, with Americans in urban centers experiencing the benefits of globalization while many in rural areas feel left behind as the American middle class shrinks. These two Americas also often inhabit opposing factual realities, allowing misinformation to persist and even fuel violence. “And here’s the thing: Each is represented by a different party. That’s one reason the two-party system is breaking down.”Rippling effects abroadThis national self-doubt also has implications for the perception of American strength and supremacy globally, a challenge for President Biden’s foreign policy as his administration struggles to win back the global repute thrown into question by four years of “America First.”In his address at the Capitol on Jan. 6, Mr. Biden said, “Both at home and abroad, we’re engaged anew in a struggle between democracy and autocracy.”Donald J. Trump and his allies continue to push a false retelling of the 2020 election, in which Democrats stole the vote and the Jan. 6 riot to disrupt President Biden’s certification was largely peaceful or was staged by Mr. Trump’s opponents. This approach is part of a broader transformation of authoritarian tactics globally, as Max Fisher, the Interpreter columnist at The Times, points out.“Dictators have shifted emphasis from blunt-force repression (although this still happens, too) to subtler methods like manipulating information or sowing division, aimed at preventing dissent over suppressing it,” he wrote. Now, history is being rewritten in Russia, Hungary and China, where governments are repressing and sanitizing elements of national history in favor of contemporary politics — as is also happening in the United States.This tactical similarity with foreign autocrats, some experts argue, throws American ideals into question internationally. “If crucial facts can be denied by a major American party and millions of American citizens, aren’t all American claims to truth and rationality suspect?” said Robert Daly, director of the Kissinger Institute on China.“For as long as I can remember, U.S. democracy, even with its flaws, was held up as the gold standard of democracy worldwide,” said Cynthia Arnson, director of the Latin America program at the Wilson Center. Now, according to a Pew Research survey, a median of just 17 percent of respondents said democracy in the U.S. is a good example for others to follow.America still benefits from some positive reputational assessments around the world, with a majority of respondents to the Pew survey expressing favorable opinions on America’s technology, its military and its entertainment output. But some experts argue those sources of soft power are also under threat in conjunction with democratic backsliding.“One of the side effects of losing the democracy is losing control over the markets,” Rebecca Henderson, a professor at Harvard Business School, said, adding, “I think it’s an incredibly dangerous moment. I think we absolutely could lose the democracy.”Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 10The House investigation. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Law of Unintended Political Consequences Strikes Again

      by

      The killing of George Floyd and the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests that followed drove an exceptionally large increase in foundation grants and pledges to criminal and racial justice reform groups and other causes, ranging from the United Negro College Fund to the Center for Antiracist Research and from the National Museum of African American History to the Yes 4 Minneapolis campaign to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.Candid — a website that connects “people who want to change the world with the resources they need to do it” — published “What does Candid’s grants data say about funding for racial equity in the United States?” by Anna Koob on July 24, 2020.Koob wrote:In the months since George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police, we witnessed a surge in attention to longstanding anti-Black racism in the United States. Although racial inequality is hardly a new phenomenon, the public reaction to these events does feel bigger and more broad based, a trend that’s reflected in the well-documented rapid increase in related philanthropic giving to racial equity in a matter of weeks.Before Floyd’s death, Candid found that philanthropies provided “$3.3 billion in racial equity funding” for the nine years from 2011 to 2019. Since then, Candid calculations revealed much higher totals for both 2020 and 2021: “50,887 grants valued at $12.7 billion” and “177 pledges valued at $11.6 billion.”Among the top funders, according to Candid’s calculations, are the Ford Foundation, at $3 billion; Mackenzie Scott, at $2.9 billion; JPMorgan Chase & Co. Contributions Program, at $2.1 billion; W.K. Kellogg Foundation, $1.2 billion; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $1.1 billion; Silicon Valley Community Foundation, $1 billion; Walton Family Foundation, $689 million; The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, $438 million; and the Foundation to Promote Open Society, $350.5 million.There are Democratic strategists who worry about unintended political consequences that could flow from this surge in philanthropic giving. Rob Stein, one of the founders of the Democracy Alliance, an organization of major donors on the left, argued in a phone interview that while most foundation spending is on programs that have widespread support, “when progressive philanthropists fund groups that promote extreme views like ‘defunding the police’ or that sanction ‘cancel culture,’ they are exacerbating intraparty conflict and stoking interparty backlash.” The danger, according to Stein, is that “some progressive politicians and funders are contributing to divisiveness within their ranks and giving fodder to the right.”Matt Bennett, senior vice president of Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, argued in an email:Whether inadvertent or not, some progressive foundations are funding work that is shortsighted and harmful to the long-term progress they hope to achieve. We recognize that every successful movement has people and institutions playing a variety of roles. There are folks whose job it is to push the envelope and others whose job it is to work within the system to make change. Some need to push the envelope and some need to assemble the compromise that can pass. That’s all part of the process.However, Bennett continued, “It’s crystal clear that some ideas being pushed by activists and funded by lefty foundations go beyond that paradigm, treading into territory that is flat-out politically toxic and that undermine our collective goals.”Bennett cited a post-2020 election study commissioned by Third Way and other groups that “found that Republicans used ‘Defund the Police’ as a cudgel against moderate Democrats, and it played a major role in the loss of more than a dozen House seats. These losses brought us to the brink of handing an insurrectionist the Speaker’s gavel.”“It’s also clear,” in Bennett’s view,that this work has led to a backlash, and it’s not confined to white voters. In Minneapolis, where a Defund the Police ballot initiative failed by a wide margin in November, it performed worst in the two districts with the heaviest Black populations. You have probably seen the Pew Research from October that showed declining support across the board for less funding for police. What’s even more striking is that on the question of whether police budgets should grow or shrink, Black and Hispanic Democrats are more in favor of higher police budgets than white Democrats. None of that is the fault of the foundations, but it is vital for them to fully appreciate the political context for their funding.Any foundation, Bennett declared,that completely ignores the political impact of their advocacy is violating the Hippocratic oath. They can and must keep their eye on the politics of the movements they advance. And they must balance shifting the long-term narrative of causes they support with the near-term political consequences of their actions. If they don’t, they may inadvertently provide potent political fodder to the illiberal, antidemocratic Trumpian G.O.P., and thereby endanger our republic.Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, wrote at the end of November, “It’s an undeniable fact that Democratic Party elites, progressive activists, foundation and think-tank officials, and most opinion journalists are well to the left of the party’s rank and file.”It’s possible, Tomasky continued, “that certain issues, or ways of talking about certain issues, will be established as litmus tests within the party that could be quite problematic for Democrats trying to run in purple districts.”Tom Perriello, a former congressman from Virginia who is now executive director of George Soros’s Open Society-U.S., strongly defends the role of foundations. Leading up to the 2020 election, foundations invested “$700 million in voter protection that probably held democracy together,” he said in a phone interview on Tuesday. “Philanthropy saved the day.”Critics who focus on the small set of controversial foundation programs that may be used by Republicans against Democrats, Perriello said, fail to recognize that “what is hurting Democrats is that there is not a core economic message and that allows Republicans to set these (cultural and racial) issues as a priority.”Perriello cited same-sex marriage as an example of philanthropy initially “pushing the Overton window” farther than the electorate was willing to go, but, over time, “now it’s a winning issue.”Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, argued in a phone interview that no consideration is — or can be — given to partisan political consequences:We make no calculations about how our grantees give credibility or not to the Democratic Party. That is of no concern to the Ford Foundation, or to me personally.Walker continued: “We support organizations that are working toward more justice and more inclusion in America, but we have no interest in the Democratic Party’s strengths or weaknesses.”I asked Walker about the concerns raised by Stein and Bennett. “We support issues that are about progress and inclusion and justice, but the chips fall where they fall,” Walker said.I also asked Walker about a subject that became a central issue in the 2021 Virginia governor’s race: “critical race theory.” Walker said that the foundation supports proponents of the theory “because we believe there is value in understanding how race is a factor in our legal system,” adding that the foundation does not support the views of its grantees “100 percent of the time, but at the end of the day we believe in certain ideas of justice and fairness in our society.”Kristen Mack, a managing director at the MacArthur Foundation, replied by email to my inquiry about foundation spending:Our grantmaking is intended to further our programmatic strategies, each of which is based on a theory of change and clear set of goals. We are aware of the larger context in the fields in which we work and recognize that our goals may be perceived by some as leaning toward a political point of view or party. Our overarching mission, however, is to create a more just, verdant and peaceful world, which is in our view a result that would be welcomed by people across the political spectrum. We are careful not to involve ourselves in, or to make decisions based on, strengthening or opposing any political party.The Nov. 2 Minneapolis election provided a case study of the complex politics of the defund-the-police movement. Voters in Minneapolis rejected — by 56 percent to 44 percent — an amendment to the city charter that would have dismantled the police department and replaced it with a department of public safety.All three wards with majorities or pluralities of Black voters — wards 4, 5 and 6 — voted against the amendment by margins larger than the citywide average, at 61.2 percent to 38.8 percent. Voters in three other of the city’s 13 wards — 8, 9 and 10 — strongly supported the amendment to disband the police department, 57 percent to 43 percent. Voters in wards 8, 9 and 10 are majority or plurality white, with whites making up 54.1 percent of the population of the three wards taken together, according to data provided to The Times by Jeff Matson of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota.The battle over the amendment reverberated into the races for City Council, resulting in the defeat of some incumbents who supported dismantling the police department.Esme Murphy of Minneapolis television station WCCO interviewed several of the victors:“Emily Koski, a mother of two in south Minneapolis, defeated Ward 11 incumbent Jeremy Schroeder, one of the strongest voices who in June of 2020 called for defunding the Minneapolis police.”Koski told Murphy, “I felt this was the time to step up and make sure that we are actually listening to all of our community members and I feel like they felt they had been shut out.”Similarly, in northern Minneapolis, Murphy reported: “LaTrisha Vetaw beat incumbent Phillipe Cunningham. He too was a strong supporter of replacing the police. ‘I ran because I love this community and we deserve so much better in this community than what we were getting.’”The single largest contribution, $650,000, to the Yes 4 Minneapolis PAC, the leading group seeking approval of the charter amendment to dismantle the police department, was from Soros’s Open Society Policy Center.Some philanthropies, in the view of Larry Kramer, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, have inadvertently become trapped in the politics of polarization. In a phone interview, Kramer contended:Too many — on both left and right — believe they are just one punch away from knocking the other side out. The problem, they say, is that we haven’t gone far enough, the reason we haven’t crushed the other side is because we are trimming our sails. I don’t think they see how they are widening the divide and making the fundamental problem worse.This set of beliefs in particularly problematic at this juncture, Kramer continued, because “the public has lost faith in all our institutions. Neoliberalism is dead, but in the absence of something better, people are drifting toward ethnonationalism as a way to explain what seems wrong about the world to them.”Instead of looking for a knockout punch, Kramer argued, “with neoliberalism dead, something will replace it. The challenge is to find something better than ethnonationalism — a way to think about the relationship of government and markets to people that is better suited to a 21st-century economy and society.”Jonathan Chait, a columnist for New York magazine, wrote an essay in late November on the dilemmas of the Biden presidency, “Joe Biden’s Big Squeeze,” in which he argued that progressive foundationshave churned out studies and deployed activists to bring left-wing ideas into the political debate. At this they have enjoyed overwhelming success. In recent years, a host of new slogans and plans — the Green New Deal, “Defund the police,” “Abolish ICE,” and so on — have leaped from the world of nonprofit activism onto the chyrons of MSNBC and Fox News. Obviously, the conservative media have played an important role in publicizing (and often distorting) the most radical ideas from the activist left. But the right didn’t invent these edgy slogans; the left did, injecting them into the national bloodstream.Nonprofits on the left, Chait argued, “set out to build a new Democratic majority. When the underpinnings of its theory collapsed, the movement it built simply continued onward, having persuaded itself that its ideas constituted an absolute moral imperative.”Chait went on:The grim irony is that, in attempting to court nonwhite voters, Democrats ended up turning them off. It was not only that they got the data wrong — they were also courting these “marginalized communities” in ways that didn’t appeal to them. For the reality is that the Democratic Party’s most moderate voters are disproportionately Latino and Black.The defeat of Democratic candidates up and down the ticket in the 2021 Virginia election renewed the intraparty debate.ALG Research, the major polling firm in the Joe Biden campaign, conducted, along with Third Way, a postelection study of the 2021 Virginia governor’s race, in which Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, defeated Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic nominee. The ALG study of swing voters, which I have reported on in past columns, found, for example, that Republican highlighting of critical race theory had a subtle effect on voters:CRT in schools is not an issue in and of itself, but it taps into these voters’ frustrations. Voters were nearly unanimous in describing the country as divided and feeling that politics is unavoidably in their faces.While the voters ALG studied knew that critical race theory had not been formally adopted as part of Virginia’s curriculum, the report continued,they felt like racial and social justice issues were overtaking math, history, and other things. They absolutely want their kids to hear the good and the bad of American history, at the same time they are worried that racial and cultural issues are taking over the state’s curricula. We should expect this backlash to continue, especially as it plays into another way where parents and communities feel like they are losing control over their schools in addition to the basics of even being able to decide if they’re open or not.As my colleague Jeremy W. Peters wrote in a postelection analysis last year, criticshave argued that Democrats are trying to explain major issues — such as inflation, crime and school curriculum — with answers that satisfy the party’s progressive base but are unpersuasive and off-putting to most other voters. The clearest example is in Virginia, where the Democratic candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe, lost his election after spending weeks trying to minimize and discredit his opponent’s criticisms of public school education, particularly the way that racism is talked about. Mr. McAuliffe accused the Republican, Glenn Youngkin, of campaigning on a “made-up” issue and of blowing a “racist dog whistle.”But, Peters continued:About a quarter of Virginia voters said that the debate over teaching critical race theory, a graduate-level academic framework that has become a stand-in for a debate over what to teach about race and racism in schools, was the most important factor in their decision, and 72 percent of those voters cast ballots for Mr. Youngkin, according to a survey of more than 2,500 voters conducted for The Associated Press by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonpartisan research organization.For leaders of the Democratic Party, these developments pose a particularly frustrating problem because they pay an electoral price for policy proposals and rhetoric that are outside party control.Some might argue that Republicans have the same problem in reverse, but that is not the case. The Republican Party cannot rein in its radical wing and has shown no real inclination to do so. Worse, to succeed in 2022 and 2024, it may not need to.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

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Qué significa el 6 de enero para Estados Unidos?

      by

      Un año después del humo y los vidrios rotos, de la horca simulada y la violencia demasiado real de ese día atroz, es tentador hacer una retrospectiva e imaginar que, de hecho, podemos simplemente hacer una retrospectiva. Es tentador imaginar que lo que sucedió el 6 de enero de 2021 —un asalto mortal en la sede del gobierno de Estados Unidos incitado por un presidente derrotado en medio de una campaña desesperada por frustrar la transferencia de poder a su sucesor— fue terrible pero que ahora está en el pasado y que nosotros, como nación, hemos podido avanzar.Es un impulso comprensible. Después de cuatro años de caos, crueldad e incompetencia, que culminaron en una pandemia y con el trauma antes impensable del 6 de enero, la mayoría de los estadounidenses estaban impacientes por tener algo de paz y tranquilidad.Hemos conseguido eso, en la superficie. Nuestra vida política parece más o menos normal en estos días: el presidente perdona pavos y el Congreso se pelea por la legislación de presupuesto. Pero si escarbamos un poco, las cosas están lejos de ser normales. El 6 de enero no está en el pasado: está presente todos los días.Está en los ciudadanos de a pie que amenazan a funcionarios electorales y otros servidores públicos, está en quienes preguntan “¿Cuándo podemos usar las armas?” y prometen asesinar a los políticos que se atrevan a votar con conciencia. Son los legisladores republicanos que luchan por hacer que el voto sea más difícil para las personas y, si votan, que sea más fácil subvertir su voluntad. Está en Donald Trump, quien continúa avivando las llamas del conflicto con sus mentiras desenfrenadas y resentimientos ilimitados y cuya versión distorsionada de la realidad todavía domina a uno de los dos principales partidos políticos de la nación.En pocas palabras, la república enfrenta una amenaza existencial por parte de un movimiento que desdeña de manera abierta la democracia y que ha demostrado su disposición a usar la violencia para conseguir sus propósitos. Ninguna sociedad autónoma puede sobrevivir a una amenaza así negando que esta existe. Más bien, la supervivencia depende de mirar al pasado y hacia el futuro al mismo tiempo.Encarar de verdad la amenaza que se avecina significa entender plenamente el terror de ese día hace un año. Gracias en gran medida a la labor tenaz de un comité bipartidista en la Cámara de Representantes, una toma de conciencia está en proceso. Ahora sabemos que la violencia y el caos transmitidos en vivo a todo el mundo fue solo la parte más visible y visceral de un esfuerzo por revertir las elecciones. Ese esfuerzo llegaba hasta el Despacho Oval, donde Trump y sus aliados planearon un autogolpe constitucional.Ahora sabemos que los principales legisladores republicanos y figuras de los medios de comunicación de derecha entendieron en privado lo peligroso que era el asalto y le pidieron a Trump que lo detuviera, incluso cuando públicamente decían lo contrario. Ahora sabemos que quienes pueden tener información crítica sobre la planificación y ejecución del ataque se niegan a cooperar con el Congreso, incluso si eso significa ser acusado de desacato criminal.Por ahora, el trabajo del comité continúa. Ha programado una serie de audiencias públicas para exponer estos y otros detalles, y planea publicar un informe completo de sus hallazgos antes de las elecciones intermedias de este año. Después de los comicios, si los republicanos recuperan el control de la Cámara, como se espera, indudablemente el comité será disuelto.Aquí es donde entra la mirada hacia el futuro. A lo largo del año pasado, legisladores republicanos en 41 estados han intentado promover los objetivos de los alborotadores del 6 de enero, y lo han hecho no rompiendo leyes, sino promulgándolas. Se han propuesto cientos de proyectos de ley y se han aprobado casi tres decenas de leyes que facultan a las legislaturas estatales para sabotear sus propios comicios y anular la voluntad de sus votantes, según el recuento activo de un consorcio no partidista de organizaciones a favor de la democracia.Algunos proyectos de ley cambiarían las reglas para hacer más fácil que los legisladores rechacen los votos de sus ciudadanos si no les gusta el resultado. Otros proyectos legislativos reemplazan a los funcionarios electorales profesionales con figuras partidistas que podrían tener un interés claro en que gane su candidato predilecto. Y, otros más intentan criminalizar los errores humanos de funcionarios electorales, en algunos casos incluso con amenaza de cárcel.Muchas de estas leyes se están proponiendo y aprobando en estados que suele ser cruciales en las elecciones, como Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia y Pensilvania. A raíz de la votación de 2020, la campaña de Trump se enfocó en los resultados electorales en estos estados: demandó para reclamar un recuento o trataba de intimidar a los funcionarios para que encontraran votos “faltantes”. El esfuerzo fracasó, en buena medida debido al profesionalismo y la integridad de los funcionarios electorales. Desde entonces, muchos de esos funcionarios han sido despojados de su poder o expulsados de sus cargos y reemplazados por personas que dicen abiertamente que las últimas elecciones fueron fraudulentas.De este modo, los disturbios del Capitolio continúan presentes en los congresos estatales de todo Estados Unidos, en una forma legalizada y sin derramamiento de sangre y que ningún oficial de policía puede detener y que ningún fiscal puede juzgar en un tribunal.Esta no es la primera vez que las legislaturas estatales intentan arrebatarle el control de los votos electorales a sus ciudadanos, ni es la primera vez que se advierte de los peligros que entraña esa estrategia. En 1891, el presidente Benjamin Harrison advirtió al Congreso del riesgo de que ese “truco” pudiera determinar el resultado de una elección presidencial.La Constitución garantiza a todos los estadounidenses una forma republicana de gobierno, dijo Harrison. “Las características esenciales de tal gobierno son el derecho del pueblo a elegir a sus propios funcionarios” y que sus votos se cuenten por igual al tomar esa decisión. “Nuestro principal peligro nacional”, agregó, es “el derrocamiento del control de la mayoría mediante la supresión o distorsión del sufragio popular”. Si una legislatura estatal lograra sustituir la voluntad de sus votantes por la suya, “no es exagerado decir que la paz pública podría estar en peligro serio y generalizado”.Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 10The House investigation. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Las frustraciones de Kamala Harris en la vicepresidencia

      by

      WASHINGTON — El presidente necesitaba al senador de Virginia Occidental de su lado, pero no estaba seguro de necesitar a su vicepresidenta para conseguirlo.Era verano, y el presidente de Estados Unidos, Joe Biden, estaba bajo una inmensa presión para ganarse el apoyo del senador Joe Manchin, cuyo voto decisivo en una Cámara dividida en partes iguales lo convertía en el socio negociador más delicado del mandatario. Biden había invitado a Manchin al Despacho Oval para exponer en privado los argumentos a favor de su legislación de política interior más importante. Justo antes de que Manchin llegara, se dirigió a la vicepresidenta, Kamala Harris.Lo que necesitaba de ella no era una estrategia ni un consejo. Solo necesitaba que diera un saludo rápido, lo que ella hizo antes de dar media vuelta y abandonar la sala para ir a otra reunión.El momento, descrito como un intercambio de “breves cumplidos” por un alto funcionario de la Casa Blanca y confirmado por otras dos personas que fueron informadas al respecto, fue un vívido recordatorio de la complejidad del cargo que ocupa Harris: aunque la mayoría de los presidentes les prometen a sus vicepresidentes acceso e influencia, al final el poder y la responsabilidad no se reparten por igual, y Biden no siempre siente la necesidad de contar con la opinión de Harris a la hora de sortear algunas de sus relaciones más importantes.En el caso de Harris, ella llegó al puesto sin fuertes lazos con senadores clave; una persona informada sobre la reunión en el Despacho Oval dijo que sería más productivo que la charla entre Biden y Manchin se mantuviera en privado. Tampoco está claro que el presidente tuviera mucha influencia por sí solo, dada la decisión que tomó el senador la semana pasada de romper con la Casa Blanca en materia del proyecto de ley de política interior.Sin embargo, sin un papel protagónico en algunas de las decisiones más críticas que enfrenta la Casa Blanca, la vicepresidenta está atrapada entre las críticas de que se está quedando corta y el resentimiento entre los partidarios que sienten que está perdiendo terreno en el gobierno del que forma parte. Y a sus aliados les preocupa cada vez más que, aunque Biden se apoyó en ella para que le ayudara a ganar la Casa Blanca, no la necesita para gobernar.“Creo que fue una gran ayuda para la campaña”, dijo Mark Buell, uno de los primeros recaudadores de fondos de Harris desde su primera carrera para fiscala de distrito en San Francisco. “Me gustaría verla empleada de la misma manera, ahora que están implementando sus objetivos o metas”.La urgencia que rodea su posición está ligada a si el presidente, que a sus 79 años es la persona de mayor edad en ocupar el cargo, se presentará a la reelección en 2024. El miércoles de la semana pasada dijo a ABC News que se presentaría de nuevo si gozaba de buena salud. Pero las preguntas sobre la preparación de Harris para el puesto más alto están comenzando mucho antes de lo que es habitual para un gobierno en su primer año.Harris se negó a dar una entrevista, pero los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca dijeron que su relación con Biden es una asociación.“La vicepresidenta ha trabajado con diligencia junto al presidente, coordinándose con socios, aliados y miembros demócratas de la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado para promover los objetivos de este gobierno”, dijo Sabrina Singh, vicesecretaria de prensa de Harris.Harris, una de las primeras candidatas favoritas cuyas ambiciones presidenciales se desvanecieron en medio de una campaña disfuncional en 2020, se incorporó a la candidatura de Biden debido a sus prioridades políticas, que reflejaban en gran medida las de él, y a su capacidad, como mujer negra, de reforzar el apoyo de las coaliciones de votantes que él necesitaba para ganar la presidencia. Sin embargo, según las entrevistas realizadas a más de dos decenas de funcionarios de la Casa Blanca, aliados políticos y funcionarios públicos electos actuales y anteriores, Harris sigue luchando para definirse en la Casa Blanca de Biden o para corregir de forma significativa lo que ella y sus asesores consideran una percepción injusta de que está a la deriva en el puesto.Harris se incorporó a la candidatura de Biden por sus prioridades políticas, que reflejan en gran medida las de él, y después de que su campaña presidencial se truncara.Maddie McGarvey para The New York TimesAnte la caída de sus índices de aprobación, una notoria rotación de personal y las constantes críticas de los republicanos y los medios de comunicación conservadores, ha recurrido a confidentes poderosos, entre ellos Hillary Clinton, para que le ayuden a trazar un camino a seguir.Harris ha dicho en privado a sus aliados que la cobertura informativa sobre ella sería diferente si fuera cualquiera de sus 48 predecesores, a los que ha descrito como todos blancos y varones (Charles Curtis, quien fue vicepresidente con Hoover, habló con orgullo de su ascendencia indígena). También les ha confiado las dificultades a las que se enfrenta con los temas inextricables de su cartera, como el derecho al voto y las causas profundas de la migración. La Casa Blanca ha respondido a las críticas mordaces en ambos frentes, por lo que, según los activistas, es una falta de atención.“Creo que no es ningún secreto que las diferentes cosas que se le han pedido son increíblemente exigentes, no siempre bien entendidas públicamente y requieren mucho trabajo, así como mucha habilidad”, dijo el secretario de Transporte, Pete Buttigieg, en una entrevista. “Hay que hacer todo menos una cosa, que es atribuirse el mérito”.Incluso en los mejores tiempos, las limitaciones de ese trabajo hacen que el cargo vicepresidencial sea a menudo una idea de última hora, y no a todas las personas a las que se les pide, aceptan. (“No me propongo ser enterrado hasta que esté realmente muerto y en mi ataúd”, dijo en la década de 1840 Daniel Webster, antiguo secretario de Estado, al rechazar el cargo).A decir de todos, Harris y el presidente Biden tienen una relación cálida.Al Drago para The New York TimesSin embargo, la complejidad de los temas que se le han asignado y las soluciones a largo plazo que requieren, deberían haber impulsado al ala oeste de la Casa Blanca a defender a Harris de una manera más agresiva ante el público, señaló la representante demócrata por California Karen Bass, expresidenta del caucus de congresistas negros.“La Casa Blanca podría haber sido más clara en cuanto a las expectativas de lo que se suponía que iba a ocurrir bajo la supervisión de Harris”, dijo.Otros demócratas señalan que sus frustraciones son más profundas.Harris, quien pasó gran parte de sus cuatro años en el Senado como candidata a la presidencia, se enemistó con Manchin después de que ella concedió una serie de entrevistas en Virginia Occidental que él interpretó como una infracción no deseada en su territorio. Cuando se le preguntó sobre el encuentro en el Despacho Oval durante el verano, una vocera de Manchin dijo que el senador goza de “una relación de trabajo amistosa y respetuosa” con la vicepresidenta.Harris, quien pasó gran parte de sus cuatro años en el Senado postulando a la presidencia, no llegó a Washington con fuertes lazos con los legisladores, particularmente con los senadores cuyos votos han sido críticos para la agenda de política interior de Biden.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEl representante por Texas Henry Cuellar, moderado y una de las voces más destacadas del Partido Demócrata en cuestiones fronterizas, dijo que sus experiencias con el equipo de Harris habían sido decepcionantes. Cuando Cuellar se enteró de que Harris iba a viajar a la frontera en junio, hizo que su personal llamara a la oficina de la vicepresidenta para ofrecerle ayuda y asesoramiento para su visita. Nadie le regresó la llamada.“Digo esto con mucho respeto hacia ella: ya está olvidado”, dijo Cuellar. “A ella se le encargó ese trabajo, no parece que esté muy interesada en esto, así que vamos a ir con otros que trabajen en este tema”, agregó.En el futuro, Cuellar dijo que iría directamente al ala oeste con sus preocupaciones sobre la migración en lugar de a la oficina de la vicepresidenta.De la Casa Blanca, Cuellar dijo: “Al menos hablan contigo”.Los colaboradores de Harris han señalado su labor de presión sobre otros países y empresas para que se unan a Estados Unidos en un compromiso de inversión de unos 1200 millones de dólares para ampliar el acceso digital, la resiliencia climática y las oportunidades económicas en Centroamérica. Sin embargo, se ha avanzado poco en la lucha contra la corrupción en la región.En lo que respecta al derecho al voto, Harris, quien le pidió a Biden que le permitiera encabezar los esfuerzos de su gobierno en este tema, invitó a activistas a la Casa Blanca y pronunció discursos. Pero su oficina no ha desarrollado planes detallados para trabajar con los legisladores a fin de asegurarse de que dos proyectos de ley que reformarían el sistema sean aprobados por el Congreso, según un alto funcionario de su oficina.Desde que llegó a Washington, Harris ha buscado el consejo de otras mujeres —incluida Clinton, la primera candidata demócrata a la presidencia— que han logrado un éxito político histórico para que la ayuden a encontrar un camino.“Existe una doble moral; por desgracia, eso sigue presente y se hace notar”, dijo Clinton en una entrevista. “En realidad, influye en mucho de lo que se está utilizando para juzgarla, al igual que lo que se usó para juzgarme a mí, a las mujeres que se postularon en 2020 o a todas las demás”.Las dos hablan cada pocos meses por teléfono; en noviembre, Clinton visitó a Harris en su oficina del ala oeste.Harris y Biden tras ganar las elecciones del 7 de noviembre de 2020.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesBass señaló que el doble rasero va más allá del género de Harris.“Sé, y todos lo sabíamos, que lo pasaría mal porque siempre que se es ‘la primera’, lo pasas mal”, dijo Bass. “Y ser la primera mujer vicepresidenta, ser la primera mujer negra y asiática, es un triple. Así que sabíamos que iba a ser duro, pero ha sido implacable, y creo que extremadamente injusto”.Antes de su viaje a Vietnam y Singapur en agosto, Harris llamó a Clinton y a varias ex secretarias de Estado, como Condoleezza Rice y Madeleine Albright. Ha mantenido varias conversaciones privadas con Angela Merkel, quien ha relatado los retos a los que se enfrentó como primera mujer canciller de Alemania.Para este artículo, la oficina de Harris proporcionó decenas de ejemplos de su trabajo. Fue enviada a Francia para seguir reparando las frías relaciones tras un embarazoso desencuentro diplomático, y la Casa Blanca consideró el viaje un éxito. Ha asistido a más de 30 eventos centrados en la promoción de la agenda doméstica del presidente, y su huella está en el proyecto final de la ley de infraestructuras en temas como la política de agua limpia, el acceso a la banda ancha y las inversiones para combatir los incendios forestales (el derecho al voto es otro).El presidente de Francia, Emmanuel Macron, recibió a Harris en el Palacio del Elíseo de París en noviembre.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesEl presidente también reconoció el interés de Harris en aliviar la deuda de los préstamos estudiantiles cuando acordó el 22 de diciembre la ampliación de una moratoria en los reembolsos de los préstamos federales hasta el 1 de mayo, una decisión que fue aclamada por activistas y legisladores demócratas que le han pedido al gobierno que haga más al respecto.Sin embargo, mientras la Casa Blanca se esfuerza por sacar adelante una legislación importante, Biden se ha apoyado en su propia experiencia —36 años en el Senado y ocho años en la vicepresidencia— para conseguir que Estados Unidos supere la pandemia de coronavirus y cumplir una serie de promesas económicas de gran importancia. Mientras tanto, Harris se enfrenta a preguntas sobre cómo encaja en las principales prioridades de la Casa Blanca.A decir de todos, ella y el presidente mantienen una relación cálida. En las reuniones, los dos suelen intercambiar opiniones y Biden le permite intervenir y hacer preguntas que van más allá de lo que él ha pedido; un asesor lo comparó con el juego del “policía bueno y el policía malo”. Al lado del presidente, Harris, exfiscala, ha interrogado a expertos en economía y funcionarios de inmigración, a veces pidiéndoles que expliquen mejor su razonamiento.Sin embargo, a sus aliados les preocupa que a la vicepresidenta en ocasiones se le dé un trato secundario.Cuando el presidente trabajó hasta altas horas de la noche de un viernes del mes pasado para conseguir la aprobación de los legisladores para su plan bipartidista de infraestructuras, un comunicado de la Casa Blanca solo decía que estaba trabajando con un grupo de asesores políticos y legislativos.El equipo de la vicepresidenta, sorprendido por la omisión de su nombre, informó a los medios de comunicación de que ella también había estado allí, realizando llamadas a los legisladores. Preguntado por la exclusión, un portavoz de la Casa Blanca dijo que el comunicado inicial emitido al público se basaba en la información recopilada antes de que la vicepresidenta llegara para reunirse con Biden y su personal de alto nivel. La Casa Blanca emitió un comunicado horas más tarde en el que señalaba la presencia de Harris.En las últimas semanas, ella ha visto una serie de salidas de la oficina de comunicaciones; otros funcionarios se marcharon a principios de este año.La urgencia que rodea a la posición de Harris está ligada a si el presidente, que a sus 79 años es la persona de más edad en ocupar el cargo, se presentará a la reelección en 2024.Tom Brenner para The New York TimesGil Duran, quien trabajó para Harris cuando era fiscala general de California en 2013, dijo que podía ser ofensiva y poco profesional. Duran dijo que renunció después de cinco meses en el trabajo cuando Harris se negó a asistir a una sesión informativa antes de una conferencia de prensa, pero luego reprendió a un miembro del personal hasta el punto de las lágrimas cuando sintió que no estaba preparada.“Muchos de nosotros seguiríamos con ella si fuera la Kamala Harris que pensamos que sería”, dijo Duran.La Casa Blanca no hizo ningún comentario cuando se le preguntó por el episodio.Consciente de las críticas que recibe, Harris se ha centrado en promover su propia agenda en una serie de entrevistas y apariciones.Pero Bass dijo que el desafío inmediato eran las elecciones intermedias del próximo año, cuando los republicanos podrían recuperar el control de la Cámara. ¿Y las ambiciones presidenciales de Harris?“Creo que es la favorita”, dijo Bass. “Creo que será la favorita”.Katie Rogers es corresponsal de la Casa Blanca y cubre la vida en la gestión de Joe Biden, la cultura de Washington y la política nacional. Se unió al Times en 2014. @katierogersZolan Kanno-Youngs es corresponsal de la Casa Blanca que cubre una variedad de temas nacionales e internacionales durante la gestión de Biden, incluida la seguridad nacional y el extremismo. Se unió al Times en 2019 como corresponsal de seguridad nacional. @KannoYoungs More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris’s Allies Express Concern: Is She an Afterthought?

      by

      WASHINGTON — The president needed the senator from West Virginia on his side, but he wasn’t sure he needed his vice president to get him there.It was summertime, and President Biden was under immense pressure to win the support of Senator Joe Manchin III, whose decisive vote in a 50-50 chamber made him the president’s most delicate negotiating partner. Mr. Biden had invited Mr. Manchin to the Oval Office to privately make the case for his marquee domestic policy legislation. Just before Mr. Manchin arrived, he turned to Vice President Kamala Harris.What he needed from her was not strategy or advice. He needed her to only say a quick hello, which she did before turning on her heel and leaving the room.The moment, described as an exchange of “brief pleasantries” by a senior White House official and confirmed by two other people who were briefed on it, was a vivid reminder of the complexity of the job held by Ms. Harris: While most presidents promise their vice presidents access and influence, at the end of the day, power and responsibility are not shared equally, and Mr. Biden does not always feel a need for input from Ms. Harris as he navigates some of his most important relationships.In Ms. Harris’s case, she came to the job without strong ties to key senators; one person briefed on the Oval Office meeting said it would be more productive if the discussion between Mr. Biden and Mr. Manchin remained private. It is unclear that the president had much sway on his own, either, given the senator’s decision this week to break with the White House over the domestic policy bill.But without a headlining role in some of the most critical decisions facing the White House, the vice president is caught between criticism that she is falling short and resentment among supporters who feel she is being undercut by the administration she serves. And her allies increasingly are concerned that while Mr. Biden relied on her to help him win the White House, he does not need her to govern.“I think she was an enormous help to the ticket during the campaign,” said Mark Buell, one of Ms. Harris’s earliest fund-raisers since her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. “I would like to see her employed in the same way, now that they’re implementing their objectives or goals.”The urgency surrounding her position is tied to whether the president, who at 79 is the oldest person to hold the office, will run for re-election in 2024. He told ABC News on Wednesday that he would run again if he was in good health. But questions about Ms. Harris’s readiness for the top job are starting far earlier than is usual for an administration in its first year.Ms. Harris declined requests for an interview, but White House officials said that her relationship with Mr. Biden is a partnership.“The vice president has diligently worked alongside the president coordinating with partners, allies and Democratic members of the House and Senate to advance the goals of this administration,” said Sabrina Singh, Ms. Harris’s deputy press secretary.An early front-runner whose presidential ambitions fizzled amid a dysfunctional 2020 campaign, Ms. Harris was pulled onto the Biden ticket for her policy priorities that largely mirrored his, and her ability as a Black woman to bolster support with coalitions of voters he needed to win the presidency. But according to interviews with more than two dozen White House officials, political allies, elected officials and former aides, Ms. Harris is still struggling to define herself in the Biden White House or meaningfully correct what she and her aides feel is an unfair perception that she is adrift in the job.Ms. Harris was pulled onto the Biden ticket for her policy priorities that largely mirrored his, and after her presidential campaign fizzled.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesFaced with declining approval ratings, a series of staff departures and a drumbeat of criticism from Republicans and the conservative news media, she has turned to powerful confidantes, including Hillary Clinton, to help plot a path forward.Ms. Harris has privately told her allies that the news coverage of her would be different if she were any of her 48 predecessors, all of whom were white and male. She also has confided in them about the difficulties she is facing with the intractable issues in her portfolio, such as voting rights and the root causes of migration. The White House has pushed back against scathing criticism on both fronts, for what activists say is a lack of attention.“I think it’s no secret that the different things she has been asked to take on are incredibly demanding, not always well understood publicly and take a lot of work as well as a lot of skill,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in an interview. “You have to do everything except one thing, which is take credit.”Even in the best of times, the constraints of the job often make the vice president an afterthought, and not everyone asked to serve accepts it. (“I do not propose to be buried until I am really dead and in my coffin,” Daniel Webster, a former secretary of state, said in the 1840s about declining the job.)By all accounts, Ms. Harris and President Biden have a warm relationship.Al Drago for The New York TimesBut the complexity of the issues she has been assigned, and the long-term solutions they require, should have prompted the West Wing to defend Ms. Harris more aggressively to the public, said Representative Karen Bass, Democrat of California and the former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.“What the White House could’ve done is been clearer with the expectations of what was supposed to happen under her watch,” she said.Other Democrats say their frustrations run deeper.Ms. Harris, who spent much of her four years in the Senate running for the presidency, was at odds with Mr. Manchin after she gave a series of interviews in West Virginia that he interpreted as unwelcome infringement on his home turf. Asked about the meeting in the Oval Office over the summer, a spokeswoman for Mr. Manchin said that the senator enjoys “a friendly and respectful working relationship” with the vice president.Ms. Harris, who spent much of her four years in the Senate running for the presidency, did not come to Washington with strong ties to lawmakers, particularly the senators whose votes have been critical to Mr. Biden’s domestic agenda.Doug Mills/The New York TimesRepresentative Henry Cuellar, a moderate from Texas and one of the more prominent voices on border issues in the Democratic Party, said his experiences with Ms. Harris’s team had been disappointing. When Mr. Cuellar heard Ms. Harris was traveling to the border in June, he had his staff call her office to offer help and advice for her visit. He never received a call back.“I say this very respectfully to her: I moved on,” Mr. Cuellar said. “She was tasked with that job, it doesn’t look like she’s very interested in this, so we are going to move on to other folks that work on this issue.”In the future, Mr. Cuellar said he would go straight to the West Wing with his concerns on migration rather than the vice president’s office.Of the White House, Mr. Cuellar said, “at least they talk to you.”Ms. Harris’s aides have pointed to her work lobbying other countries and companies to join the United States in a commitment to invest about $1.2 billion to expand digital access, climate resilience and economic opportunity in Central America. But little progress has been made on curbing corruption in the region.On voting rights, Ms. Harris, who asked Mr. Biden if she could lead the administration’s efforts on the issue, has invited activists to the White House and delivered speeches. But her office has not developed detailed plans to work with lawmakers to make sure that two bills that would reform the system will pass Congress, according to a senior official in her office.Since arriving in Washington, Ms. Harris has sought the counsel of other women — including Mrs. Clinton, the first female Democratic presidential nominee — who have achieved historical political success to help her find a path.“There is a double standard; it’s sadly alive and well,” Mrs. Clinton said in an interview. “A lot of what is being used to judge her, just like it was to judge me, or the women who ran in 2020, or everybody else, is really colored by that.”The two speak every few months on the phone; in November, Mrs. Clinton visited Ms. Harris in her West Wing office.Ms. Harris and Mr. Biden speaking after winning the election on Nov. 7, 2020.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesMs. Bass pointed out that the double standard goes beyond Ms. Harris’s gender.“I know, and we all knew, that she would have a difficult time because anytime you’re a ‘first,’ you do,’” Ms. Bass said. “And to be the first woman vice president, to be the first Black, Asian woman, that’s a triple. So we knew it was going to be rough, but it has been relentless, and I think extremely unfair.”Before her trip to Vietnam and Singapore in August, Ms. Harris called Mrs. Clinton and several former female secretaries of state, including Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright. She has had several private conversations with Angela Merkel, who has recounted the challenges she faced as the first female chancellor of Germany.For this article, Ms. Harris’s office supplied dozens of examples of her work. She was sent to France to further repair frosty relations after an embarrassing diplomatic spat, a trip that the White House has hailed as a success. She has attended over 30 events focused on promoting the president’s domestic agenda, and her mark is on the final infrastructure bill on issues like clean water policy, broadband access and investments to combat wildfires. (Voting rights is another.)President Emmanuel Macron of France greeted Ms. Harris at the Élysée Palace in Paris in November.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesThe president also gave Ms. Harris credit for her interest in relieving student loan debt as he agreed on Wednesday to extend a moratorium on federal loan repayments until May 1, a decision that was hailed by activists and Democratic lawmakers who have pleaded with the administration to do more.And yet, as the White House struggles to push through major legislation, Mr. Biden has relied on his own experience — 36 years in the Senate and eight years as vice president — to try to pull the United States out of the coronavirus pandemic and deliver on a towering set of economic promises. And Ms. Harris is facing questions about where she fits into the White House’s biggest priorities.By all accounts, she and the president have a warm relationship. In meetings, the two often play off each other, with Mr. Biden allowing her to jump in and ask questions that go beyond what he has asked for; one adviser likened it to them playing “good cop, bad cop.” Alongside the president, Ms. Harris, a former prosecutor, has quizzed economic experts and immigration officials, at times asking them to better explain their reasoning.Still, her allies are concerned that she is sometimes treated as an afterthought.When the president worked late hours on a Friday night last month to win approval from lawmakers for his bipartisan infrastructure plan, a White House statement said only that he was working with a group of policy and legislative aides.The vice president’s team, surprised her name had been omitted, informed the news media that she had also been there, placing calls to lawmakers. Asked about the exclusion, a White House spokesman said the initial statement issued to the public was based on information gathered before the vice president had arrived to join Mr. Biden and his senior staff. The White House issued a statement hours later noting Ms. Harris’s presence.In recent weeks, she has seen a string of departures from the communications office; a number of other officials departed earlier this year.The urgency surrounding Ms. Harris’s position is tied to whether the president, who at 79 is the oldest person to hold the office, will run for re-election in 2024.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesGil Duran, who worked for Ms. Harris when she was California attorney general in 2013, said she could be insulting and unprofessional. Mr. Duran said he quit after five months on the job when Ms. Harris declined to attend a briefing before a news conference, but then berated a staff member to the point of tears when she felt unprepared.“A lot of us would still be with her if she was the Kamala Harris we thought she would be,” Mr. Duran said.The White House had no comment when asked about the episode.Aware of the criticism of her, Ms. Harris has been focused on promoting her own agenda in a series of interviews and appearances.But Ms. Bass said the immediate challenge was the midterm elections next year, when Republicans could take back control of the House. But as for Ms. Harris’s presidential ambitions?“I think she is the front-runner,” Ms. Bass said. “I think she’ll be the front-runner.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Find Urgent New Reasons to Worry About Latino Voters

      by

      Two reports shed light on the issues driving Hispanic voters and why their support of the Democratic Party is eroding.Sign up here to get On Politics in your inbox on Tuesdays and Thursdays.Of all the 2020 hangovers, perhaps none is as befuddling to Democrats as the party’s eroding support among Latino voters.And Democrats have plenty of reason to worry: For years, they have relied on Latinos as a crucial part of a winning coalition and held fast to the belief that the coalition would only grow along with new voters. Former President Donald J. Trump’s policies and rhetorical attacks on immigrants, many Democrats reasoned, would drive Hispanic voters to their party like no other candidate could.But Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign blew that theory out of the water: Hispanic support for him actually increased in 2020, particularly — but not only — in South Florida and South Texas. And two new reports this week show why Democrats should be worried.The first, by Equis Research, a Democratic-leaning group that focuses on Latinos, relies on polls and focus groups conducted over the year since the election. It found that the economy became the top issue for Latinos all over the country, replacing immigration for many voters.The report also found that fears of Democrats embracing socialist policies drove a large number of voters toward Mr. Trump, and that those fears persist even among Democratic voters.And in new polling by Way to Win, a Democratic-aligned group, the economy was seen as the most important issue among Latino voters. More alarming for Democrats though, is that half of all Hispanic voters polled in four key states said that they believed the country was going in the wrong direction.The poll surveyed 1,000 Latino voters in Texas, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Arizona last month in both English and Spanish, and found that 58 percent of independent voters believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. Still, 60 percent of all Latino voters surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of President Biden and the Democratic Party.But that level of support won’t be enough to hold on to the House or Senate in the midterms, said Tory Gavito, the president of Way to Win.“To win next November, we need to have Latinos at the 70 mark for Democrats, so we’ve got to move for these folks,” Ms. Gavito said in an interview. “Right now we see the support, but it’s soft.”Kristian Ramos, the campaign manager for Way to Win’s midterm message research project, said: “We could easily lose them to the couch. This administration has done 10 times more on Covid, has done miraculous work on the economy, but Latinos have no idea. And the economic anxiety in this group is off the charts.”Half of those polled by Way to Win said that they trusted the Democratic Party more on the issues of jobs and the economy, while 54 percent said they approved of Mr. Biden’s handling of the economy. Among those who have an unfavorable view of the party, 22 percent say it is too liberal or socialist, according to the poll.Yet the majority of those surveyed said they wished that Mr. Biden could have enacted more change than he has so far, which pollsters tied to “deep anxiety about the economy.”“They don’t really care ideologically, as long as someone is speaking to those pain points,” Mr. Ramos said.The Equis report found that Latinos who may have been otherwise inclined to vote for Mr. Trump in 2016 withheld their support in that campaign because of his hard-line stance on immigration and the “importance of the Hispanic identity.” But by the middle of 2020, neither of those issues clearly differentiated Trump supporters and Democratic voters. Instead, the impact of the pandemic appeared to drive a larger number of voters, and the Trump administration’s approach to reopening the economy was embraced by a majority of them.The Equis research found that Democrats are losing ground to Republicans on issues relating to the economy. Asked which party they find more accurately described as valuing hard work, better for the American workers and the party of the American dream, Latino voters were roughly evenly divided.“The challenge is that 2020 hasn’t ended, the same dynamics haven’t ended,” said Carlos Odio, the co-founder of Equis. If there is a moral to the story, Mr. Odio added, it is that less partisan Latinos moved toward the candidate they trusted more on their top issue. “So competing for the vote can pay off.”On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      So You Lost the Election. We Had Nothing to Do With It.

      by

      Among Democrats, there is no question that the Democratic Party is sailing in rough waters. Yes, it assembled a winning national majority in the 2020 presidential election, but it has struggled to sustain itself at every other level of government.The Republican Party controls a majority of states and state legislatures, holds a modest advantage in the fight for control of the House ahead of the 2022 midterm elections and holds a substantial advantage in the fight for control of the Senate on account of the chamber’s rural bias. It also has a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and can more easily win the Electoral College — and thus the presidency — without winning a majority of votes, as it did in 2000 and 2016.Everyone, within the Democratic Party, can see the problem. The question is who, or what, is to blame. For the past year, the answer from many moderate Democrats — and a sympathetic coterie of journalists, commentators and strategists — is that progressives have sailed the ship aground with their views on race, crime, immigration and education, which alienate potential swing voters, including working-class and blue-collar Hispanics.Writing on this problem for The Atlantic, Ron Brownstein quotes the demographer and election analyst Ruy Teixeira, who argues, “The more working class voters see their values as being at variance with the Democratic Party brand, the less likely it is that Democrats will see due credit for even their measures that do provide benefits to working class voters.”In a similar piece, my colleague Tom Edsall quotes William Galston of Brookings, who also argues that progressives threaten to limit efforts to win blue-collar support and that “Some progressives, I fear, would rather be the majority in a minority party than the minority in a majority party.”It is true that some progressives — either Democratic lawmakers or affiliated activists — hold unpopular views or use unpopular language. It is also true that Republicans have amplified this to some electoral success. But missing in this conversation is one inconvenient fact: Progressives are not actually in the driver’s seat of the Democratic Party.It’s easy to think otherwise. Even the most sober version of this critique makes it sound as if the Democratic Party is in the grip of its most left-wing officials and constituents. But it isn’t — to the dismay and frustration of those officials and constituents.The president of the United States, and leader of the Democratic Party, is Joe Biden, the standard-bearer for a bygone era of centrist governance and aisle-crossing compromise, who made his mark in domestic politics as a drug warrior in the 1980s and a “law and order” Democrat in the 1990s.The speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi, a long-serving liberal establishmentarian. Her leadership team — the majority leader, Steny Hoyer; the majority whip, James Clyburn; the assistant speaker, Katherine Clark; and the Democratic caucus chairman, Hakeem Jeffries — are similarly positioned in the center-left of the Democratic Party. The same is true of Chuck Schumer, the majority leader in the Senate, as well as the people who run the various organizations of the institutional Democratic Party.Although the share of progressives within the Democratic Party is much larger than the share of progressives writ large (12 percent of the party versus 6 percent nationally, according to the most recent political typology survey from the Pew Research Center), a large majority of Democrats are moderate to moderately liberal on most issues. That’s why — and how — Joe Biden won the nomination for president in the first place, easily beating his more left-wing opponents in the South Carolina primary and rallying much of the rest of the party behind him on Super Tuesday and beyond.In office, Biden has led from the center of the Democratic Party. His main legislative achievement so far, Covid relief notwithstanding, is a bipartisan infrastructure bill. The next phase of his agenda, the Build Back Better plan, now rests in the hands of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. He does not celebrate violent protests; he denounces them. He supports law enforcement and the criminal justice system — see his comments on the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict — and avoids most cultural battles. This is true, as well, of most elected Democrats in Washington.There was a battle for control of the Democratic Party, and the moderates won. They hold the power and they direct the message. But despite this victory, moderate Democrats and their allies can’t seem to take responsibility for the party’s fortunes. When faced with defeats — as they were last month when Terry McAuliffe fell to Glenn Youngkin in the race to succeed Ralph Northam as governor of Virginia — they blame the left. It’s the same song, each time. If progressives would just stop alienating the public, then they could make gains and put power back in Democratic hands. Somehow, the people in the passenger’s seat of the Democratic Party are always and forever responsible for the driver’s failure to reach their shared destination.Writing for his newsletter, the journalist Osita Nwanevu made a version of this point earlier in the year. Progressive politicians and activists may be occasionally off-message but in the main, “The simple truth is that most of the things moderate liberals tend to argue Democrats should be doing and saying are, in fact, being done and said by the Biden administration, Democratic leaders in Congress, and the vast majority of Democratic elected officials.”If, despite their influence, moderate Democrats are not satisfied with the state of their party, then they might want to turn their critical eye on themselves. What they’ll find are a few fundamental problems that may help explain the party’s current predicament.After all, 2020 was not the first year that Democrats fell short of their expectations. They did so in 2010, when moderates had an even stronger grip on the party, as well as in 2014 and 2016. Here, again, I’ll echo Nwanevu. Despite pitching his administration to the moderate middle — despite his vocal critiques of “identity politics,” his enthusiastic patriotism and his embrace of the most popular Democratic policies on offer — Barack Obama could not arrest the Democratic Party’s slide with blue-collar voters. For the past decade, in other words, “the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects have been in decline for reasons unattributable to progressive figures and ideas that arrived on the political scene practically yesterday.”Perhaps the problem, then, lies less with the rhetoric (or existence) of progressive Democrats and more with any number of transformations in the material circumstances of American life and the response — or lack thereof — from the Democrats with the power to do something. What was the Democratic Party’s response to a generation of neoliberal economic restructuring? What was its response to the near-total collapse of private-sector unions? What was its response to the declining fortunes of American workers and the upward redistribution of American wealth?The answer, for most of the past 30 years, is that the moderate Democrats who led the party have either acquiesced in these trends or, as in the case of the Clinton administration, actively pushed them along. And to the extent that these Democrats offered policies targeted to working Americans, they very often failed to deliver on their promises.As a result, as David Dayen of The American Prospect notes in “The Case for Deliverism,” “cynicism finds a breeding ground. People tune out the Democratic message as pretty words in a speech. Eventually, Democratic support gets ground down to a nub, surfacing only in major metropolitan areas that have a cultural affinity for liberalism.” These Democrats, in their failure to deliver, lend credence to the view that Washington is more a hindrance than a help. We can see this right now, as moderate and conservative Democratic resistance to the most ambitious parts of Biden’s agenda has bogged down the entire party and hurt its overall standing.Read in this light, the frequent focus on progressives as the cause of Democratic woes looks less like hard-nosed analysis and more like excuse-making. And my sense is that this excuse-making will only get worse as Republicans weaponize the institutions of American politics to entrench their power and lay the conditions for durable minority rule.Right now, the moderate Democrats who run the party have a narrow and slipping hold on Congress against an opposition that relies on structural advantages, which could be mitigated, or at least undermined, with federal power. They have failed to act, and there’s no sign, so far, that anything will change.If and when Democrats lose one or both chambers of Congress — and when we all face the consequences of their failure — I am confident that we’ll hear, once again, how it’s everyone’s fault but their own.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