Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Jim Jordan Refuses to Cooperate With Jan. 6 Panel

      by

      The Republican congressman from Ohio, a close ally of former President Donald Trump’s, denounced the House investigation of the Capitol riot as one of the Democrats’ “partisan witch hunts.”WASHINGTON — Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, announced on Sunday that he was refusing to cooperate with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, joining a growing list of allies of former President Donald J. Trump who have adopted a hostile stance toward the panel’s questions.In an effort to dig into the role that members of Congress played in trying to undermine the 2020 election, the committee informed Mr. Jordan in December by letter that its investigators wanted to question him about his communications related to the run-up to the Capitol riot. Those include Mr. Jordan’s messages with Mr. Trump and his legal team as well as others involved in planning rallies on Jan. 6 and congressional objections to certifying Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.Mr. Jordan — who in November told the Rules Committee that he had “nothing to hide” regarding the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation — on Sunday denounced the bipartisan panel’s inquiry as among what he called the Democrats’ “partisan witch hunts.”“It amounts to an unprecedented and inappropriate demand to examine the basis for a colleague’s decision on a particular matter pending before the House of Representatives,” Mr. Jordan wrote in a letter to Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the committee. “This request is far outside the bounds of any legitimate inquiry, violates core constitutional principles and would serve to further erode legislative norms.”Mr. Jordan was deeply involved in Mr. Trump’s effort to fight the election results, including participating in planning meetings in November 2020 at Trump campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va., and a meeting at the White House in December 2020.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?On Jan. 5, Mr. Jordan forwarded to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, a text message he had received from a lawyer and former Pentagon inspector general outlining a legal strategy to overturn the election.“On Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence,” the text read.Mr. Jordan has acknowledged speaking with Mr. Trump on Jan. 6, though he has said he cannot remember how many times they spoke that day or when the calls occurred.Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the committee, has said that Mr. Jordan is a “material witness” to the events of Jan. 6.In Mr. Jordan’s letter on Sunday, he argued he had little relevant information to share with the committee and that its members should be investigating security failures at the Capitol instead of seeking to question Republican lawmakers.Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 10The House investigation. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Ron Johnson, G.O.P. Senator From Wisconsin, Will Seek Re-election

      by

      The renewed bid for office by Mr. Johnson, who has spread many false claims about the 2020 election and Covid, ensures that both parties will be highly invested in Wisconsin’s 2022 Senate race.WASHINGTON — Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin who over the last year has become the Senate’s leading purveyor of misinformation about elections and the coronavirus pandemic, announced Sunday that he would seek re-election to a third term.Mr. Johnson, 66, had pledged to step aside after two terms but opened the door to a third shortly before the 2020 presidential election. His entry into the race is certain to focus enormous attention on Wisconsin, a narrowly divided political battleground where Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, faces his own difficult re-election bid in a race that may determine control of the state’s election systems ahead of the 2024 presidential contest.“Today, I am announcing I will continue to fight for freedom in the public realm by running for re-election,” Mr. Johnson wrote in an essay published Sunday in The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Johnson’s decision follows an announcement Saturday from another Senate Republican weighing retirement, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, that he would seek a fourth term.The Wisconsin Senate contest is expected to be among the tightest in the country. Mr. Johnson is loathed by Democrats and has attracted a double-digit field of challengers vying to take him on in the general election. Local Democrats have been raising money for nearly a year to build a turnout machine for the 2022 midterm elections.When Mr. Johnson first entered politics in 2010 as a self-funding chief executive of a plastics company founded by his wife’s family, he defined himself as a citizen legislator in contrast with Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat who had been in public office for 28 years. Mr. Johnson was carried into office by that year’s Tea Party wave, then beat Mr. Feingold again in 2016 as Donald J. Trump became the first Republican presidential nominee to win Wisconsin in 32 years.All along, Mr. Johnson pledged to serve no more than 12 years in the Senate, but he began to privately reconsider after the 2018 elections, when Democrats took back control of the House of Representatives and won narrow victories in Wisconsin’s statewide elections. He wrote Sunday that when he made reiterated his two-term pledge during his 2016 race he didn’t anticipate “the Democrats’ complete takeover of government and the disastrous policies they have already inflicted on America and the world.” Suddenly the leader of Wisconsin Republicans and the lone G.O.P. official elected to statewide office, Mr. Johnson wavered on his pledge as he became the subject of an intense lobbying campaign from Republicans in both Wisconsin and Washington. They argued that if he did not run again, the party would jeopardize a seat that could tilt the balance of the Senate in 2023.Mr. Johnson wrote that he was seeking a new term because “I believe America is in peril,” adding: “Much as I’d like to ease into a quiet retirement, I don’t feel I should.”This year, Mr. Johnson has been at the forefront of the two strongest strains of misinformation coursing through the Republican Party — false claims about election administration and public health.In the days after the 2020 election, he challenged Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. During a Senate hearing in February, he read into the record a report that falsely suggested the Trump-inspired Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol had been instigated by “fake Trump supporters.” In November, he began urging Wisconsin’s Republican state legislators to seize control of federal elections in the state, arguing that they could do so without the governor’s approval, despite decades-old rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court that say otherwise.Aside from Mr. Trump, there is perhaps no major Republican official who has made more false claims about the coronavirus and its vaccines than Mr. Johnson. He has said he will not get vaccinated, and has promoted discredited Covid-19 treatments and declined to encourage others to seek out the vaccines. In December, he falsely claimed that gargling with mouthwash could help stop transmission of the virus, an assertion that drew a rebuke from the manufacturer of Listerine.The Coronavirus Pandemic: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 6The global surge. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Fury Alone Won’t Destroy Trumpism. We Need a Plan B.

      by

      In his 2020 book “Politics Is for Power,” Eitan Hersh, a political scientist at Tufts, sketched a day in the life of many political obsessives in sharp, if cruel, terms.I refresh my Twitter feed to keep up on the latest political crisis, then toggle over to Facebook to read clickbait news stories, then over to YouTube to see a montage of juicy clips from the latest congressional hearing. I then complain to my family about all the things I don’t like that I have seen.To Hersh, that’s not politics. It’s what he calls “political hobbyism.” And it’s close to a national pastime. “A third of Americans say they spend two hours or more each day on politics,” he writes. “Of these people, four out of five say that not one minute of that time is spent on any kind of real political work. It’s all TV news and podcasts and radio shows and social media and cheering and booing and complaining to friends and family.”Real political work, for Hersh, is the intentional, strategic accumulation of power in service of a defined end. It is action in service of change, not information in service of outrage. This distinction is on my mind because, like so many others, I’ve spent the week revisiting the attempted coup of Jan. 6, marinating in my fury toward the Republicans who put fealty toward Donald Trump above loyalty toward country and the few but pivotal Senate Democrats who are proving, day after day, that they think the filibuster more important than the franchise. Let me tell you, the tweets and columns I drafted in my head were searing.But fury is useful only as fuel. We need a Plan B for democracy. Plan A was to pass H.R. 1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Neither bill, as of now, has a path to President Biden’s desk. I’ve found that you provoke a peculiar anger if you state this, as if admitting the problem were the cause of the problem. I fear denial has left many Democrats stuck on a national strategy with little hope of near-term success. In order to protect democracy, Democrats have to win more elections. And to do that, they need to make sure the country’s local electoral machinery isn’t corrupted by the Trumpist right.“The people thinking strategically about how to win the 2022 election are the ones doing the most for democracy,” said Daniel Ziblatt, a political scientist at Harvard and one of the authors of “How Democracies Die.” “I’ve heard people saying bridges don’t save democracy — voting rights do. But for Democrats to be in a position to protect democracy, they need bigger majorities.”There are people working on a Plan B. This week, I half-jokingly asked Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, what it felt like to be on the front lines of protecting American democracy. He replied, dead serious, by telling me what it was like. He spends his days obsessing over mayoral races in 20,000-person towns, because those mayors appoint the city clerks who decide whether to pull the drop boxes for mail-in ballots and small changes to electoral administration could be the difference between winning Senator Ron Johnson’s seat in 2022 (and having a chance at democracy reform) and losing the race and the Senate. Wikler is organizing volunteers to staff phone banks to recruit people who believe in democracy to serve as municipal poll workers, because Steve Bannon has made it his mission to recruit people who don’t believe in democracy to serve as municipal poll workers.I’ll say this for the right: They pay attention to where the power lies in the American system, in ways the left sometimes doesn’t. Bannon calls this “the precinct strategy,” and it’s working. “Suddenly, people who had never before showed interest in party politics started calling the local G.O.P. headquarters or crowding into county conventions, eager to enlist as precinct officers,” ProPublica reports. “They showed up in states Trump won and in states he lost, in deep-red rural areas, in swing-voting suburbs and in populous cities.”The difference between those organizing at the local level to shape democracy and those raging ineffectually about democratic backsliding — myself included — remind me of the old line about war: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. Right now, Trumpists are talking logistics.“We do not have one federal election,” said Amanda Litman, a co-founder of Run for Something, which helps first-time candidates learn about the offices they can contest and helps them mount their campaigns. “We have 50 state elections and then thousands of county elections. And each of those ladder up to give us results. While Congress can write, in some ways, rules or boundaries for how elections are administered, state legislatures are making decisions about who can and can’t vote. Counties and towns are making decisions about how much money they’re spending, what technology they’re using, the rules around which candidates can participate.”An NPR analysis found 15 Republicans running for secretary of state in 2022 who doubt the legitimacy of Biden’s win. In Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, the incumbent Republican secretary of state who stood fast against Trump’s pressure, faces two primary challengers who hold that Trump was 2020’s rightful winner. Trump has endorsed one of them, Representative Jody Hice. He’s also endorsed candidates for secretary of state in Arizona and Michigan who backed him in 2020 and stand ready to do so in 2024. As NPR dryly noted, “The duties of a state secretary of state vary, but in most cases, they are the state’s top voting official and have a role in carrying out election laws.”Nor is it just secretaries of state. “Voter suppression is happening at every level of government here in Georgia,” Representative Nikema Williams, who chairs the Georgia Democratic Party, told me. “We have 159 counties, and so 159 different ways boards of elections are elected and elections are carried out. So we have 159 different leaders who control election administration in the state. We’ve seen those boards restrict access by changing the number of ballot boxes. Often, our Black members on these boards are being pushed out.”America’s confounding political structure creates two mismatches that bedevil democracy’ would-be defenders. The first mismatch is geographic. Your country turns on elections held in Georgia and Wisconsin, and if you live in California or New York, you’re left feeling powerless.But that’s somewhere between an illusion and a cop-out. A constant complaint among those working to win these offices is that progressives donate hundreds of millions to presidential campaigns and long-shot bids against top Republicans, even as local candidates across the country are starved for funds.“Democratic major donors like to fund the flashy things,” Litman told me. “Presidential races, Senate races, super PACs, TV ads. Amy McGrath can raise $90 million to run against Mitch McConnell in a doomed race, but the number of City Council and school board candidates in Kentucky who can raise what they need is …” She trailed off in frustration.The second mismatch is emotional. If you’re frightened that America is sliding into authoritarianism, you want to support candidates, run campaigns and donate to causes that directly focus on the crisis of democracy. But few local elections are run as referendums on Trump’s big lie. They’re about trash pickup and bond ordinances and traffic management and budgeting and disaster response.Lina Hidalgo ran for county judge in Harris County, Texas, after the 2016 election. Trump’s campaign had appalled her, and she wanted to do something. “I learned about this position that had flown under the radar for a very long time,” she told me. “It was the type of seat that only ever changed who held it when the incumbent died or was convicted of a crime. But it controls the budget for the county. Harris County is nearly the size of Colorado in population, larger than 28 states. It’s the budget for the hospital system, roads, bridges, libraries, the jail. And part of that includes funding the electoral system.”Hidalgo didn’t campaign as a firebrand progressive looking to defend Texas from Trump. She won it, she told me, by focusing on what mattered most to her neighbors: the constant flooding of the county, as violent storms kept overwhelming dilapidated infrastructure. “I said, ‘Do you want a community that floods year after year?’” She won, and after she won, she joined with her colleagues to spend $13 million more on election administration and to allow residents to vote at whichever polling place was convenient for them on Election Day, even if it wasn’t the location they’d been assigned.Protecting democracy by supporting county supervisors or small-town mayors — particularly ones who fit the politics of more conservative communities — can feel like being diagnosed with heart failure and being told the best thing to do is to double-check your tax returns and those of all your neighbors.“If you want to fight for the future of American democracy, you shouldn’t spend all day talking about the future of American democracy,” Wikler said. “These local races that determine the mechanics of American democracy are the ventilation shaft in the Republican death star. These races get zero national attention. They hardly get local attention. Turnout is often lower than 20 percent. That means people who actually engage have a superpower. You, as a single dedicated volunteer, might be able to call and knock on the doors of enough voters to win a local election.”Or you can simply win one yourself. That’s what Gabriella Cázares-Kelly did. Cázares-Kelly, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation, agreed to staff a voter registration booth at the community college where she worked, in Pima County, Ariz. She was stunned to hear the stories of her students. “We keep blaming students for not participating, but it’s really complicated to get registered to vote if you don’t have a license, the nearest D.M.V. is an hour and a half away and you don’t own a car,” she told me.Cázares-Kelly learned that much of the authority over voter registration fell to an office neither she nor anyone around her knew much about: the County Recorder’s Office, which has authority over records ranging from deeds to voter registrations. It had powers she’d never considered. It could work with the postmaster’s office to put registration forms in tribal postal offices — or not. When it called a voter to verify a ballot and heard an answering machine message in Spanish, it could follow up in Spanish — or not.“I started contacting the records office and making suggestions and asking questions,” Cázares-Kelly said. “I did that for a long time, and the previous recorder was not very happy about it. I called so often, the staff began to know me. I didn’t have an interest in running till I heard the previous recorder was going to retire, and then my immediate thought was, ‘What if a white supremacist runs?’”So in 2020, Cázares-Kelly ran, and she won. Now she’s the county recorder for a jurisdiction with nearly a million people, and more than 600,000 registered voters, in a swing state. “One thing I was really struck by when I first started getting involved in politics is how much power there is in just showing up to things,” she said. “If you love libraries, libraries have board meetings. Go to the public meeting. See where they’re spending their money. We’re supposed to be participating. If you want to get involved, there’s always a way.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      En la carrera hacia el futuro, la historia sufre un nuevo asedio

      by

      Una ola de revisionismo engañoso se ha convertido en una epidemia tanto en las autocracias como en las democracias. Ha sido notablemente efectiva… y contagiosa.En Rusia, una organización dedicada a recordar los abusos de la era soviética se enfrenta a la liquidación ordenada por el Estado mientras el Kremlin impone en su lugar una historia nacional aséptica.En Hungría, el gobierno expulsó o asumió el control de las instituciones educativas y culturales y las utiliza para fabricar un patrimonio nacional xenófobo alineado con su política etnonacionalista.En China, el Partido Comunista en el poder usa abiertamente los libros de texto, las películas, los programas de televisión y las redes sociales para escribir una nueva versión de la historia china que se adapte mejor a las necesidades del partido.Y en Estados Unidos, Donald Trump y sus aliados siguenpromoviendo una falsa versión de las elecciones de 2020, en la que aseguran que los demócratas manipularon los votos y afirman que el ataque del 6 de enero para interrumpir la certificación del presidente Joe Biden fue en su mayoría un acto pacífico o escenificado por los opositores de Trump.Unos revoltosos se enfrentaron a las fuerzas del orden del Capitolio de EE. UU. el 6 de enero de 2021.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesLa historia se reescribe todo el tiempo, ya sea por los académicos que actualizan sus supuestos, los activistas que reformulan el registro o los políticos que manipulan la memoria colectiva para sus propios fines.Pero una oleada de revisiones históricas falsas o engañosas de manera flagrante, tanto por parte de gobiernos democráticos como autoritarios, puede estar amenazando el ya debilitado sentido de un relato compartido y aceptado sobre el mundo.Los académicos creen que esta tendencia refleja algunas de las fuerzas que definen el siglo. Sociedades polarizadas y receptivas a las falsedades que afirman la identidad. El colapso de la fe en las instituciones centrales o en los árbitros de la verdad. El auge del nacionalismo. Tiranos cada vez más astutos. Líderes elegidos que giran cada vez más hacia el antiliberalismo.Como resultado, “deberíamos ser más propensos a ver el tipo de revisionismo histórico” impulsado por estos líderes, señaló Erica Frantz, politóloga de la Universidad Estatal de Michigan.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?En algunos lugares, los objetivos son ambiciosos: rediseñar una sociedad, empezando por su comprensión más básica de su patrimonio colectivo. Para subrayar la importancia de este proceso, el líder de China, Xi Jinping, repite la frase de un erudito confuciano del siglo XIX: “Para destruir un país, primero hay que erradicar su historia”.Victoria Park en Hong Kong el 4 de junio de 2020Lam Yik Fei para The New York TimesEl lugar estaba vacío el 4 de junio de 2021Lam Yik Fei para The New York TimesPero, a menudo y al parecer, el objetivo es más a corto plazo: provocar la rabia o el orgullo de manera que los ciudadanos se unan a la agenda del líder.Las mentiras electorales de Trump parecen ser un ejemplo de éxito. Han escindido el sentido compartido de la realidad de los estadounidenses de manera que podrían fortalecer a los aliados de Trump y justificar los esfuerzos para controlar la maquinaria de futuras elecciones. Si las tendencias globales que permiten tales tácticas continúan, puede que vengan más casos parecidos.Integrantes del Ejército Juvenil de Rusia practicaban el montaje de rifles, técnicas de primeros auxilios y artes marciales el mes pasado en Noginsk, cerca de Moscú.Sergey Ponomarev para The New York TimesUn mundo cambianteLa manera en que los gobiernos tienden a gobernar es uno de los cambios más importantes de esta tendencia.Un reciente artículo académico afirma que el autoritarismo “está sufriendo una transformación”, con lo que resume la opinión cada vez más extendida entre los académicos.Desde la Primavera Árabe y los levantamientos de la “revolución de colores” de hace una década, los dictadores han dejado de hacer hincapié en la represión por la fuerza bruta (aunque esto también sigue ocurriendo) y han adoptado técnicas más sutiles, como la manipulación de la información o la generación de divisiones, con el objetivo de prevenir la disidencia en lugar de suprimirla.Entre otros cambios, se sustituye la estruendosa prensa estatal por una serie de llamativos medios de comunicación alineados con el Estado y bots en las redes sociales, lo que crea la falsa sensación de que la narrativa oficial no se impone desde lo alto, sino que surge de forma orgánica.La propaganda más sofisticada, cuyo objetivo es la persuasión en lugar de la coerción, se manifiesta a menudo como un tipo particular de reescritura histórica. En lugar de limitarse a eliminar a los funcionarios desfavorecidos o los errores del gobierno, cultiva el orgullo nacional y el agravio colectivo con el fin de congregar a los ciudadanos.Por ejemplo, el Kremlin ha manipulado los recuerdos de la Unión Soviética y de su caída para convertirlos en una memoria de grandeza y asedio de la herencia rusa, justificando la necesidad de un líder más fuerte como Vladimir Putin y alentando a los rusos a apoyarlo con gratitud.Esto también se manifiesta en pequeñas formas. Putin ha insistido, falsamente, en que la OTAN prometió nunca extenderse al este de Alemania, justificando así la reciente agresión a Ucrania como una necesidad defensiva.Las democracias cambian también de modos dramáticos y los líderes se vuelven cada vez menos liberales y emplean más mano dura.Las crecientes divisiones sociales, junto con la creciente desconfianza popular hacia los expertos y las instituciones, a menudo contribuyen a encumbrar a esos líderes en primer lugar.Esto puede ser una fuente de apoyo para un líder dispuesto a desechar la historia oficial y sustituirla por algo más cercano a lo que sus partidarios quieren oír. Y da a esos líderes otro incentivo: justificar la toma de poder como algo esencial para derrotar a los enemigos externos o internos.Por ejemplo, Viktor Orbán, el primer ministro húngaro, hizo una revisión de la historia de Hungría para convertirla en una víctima inocente de los nazis y los comunistas, que logró salvarse gracias a su guía patriótica. De este modo, defiende el escepticismo hacia la inmigración como la continuación de una gran batalla nacional, que también le exige suprimir a los rivales, a los críticos y a las instituciones independientes.El presidente Donald J. Trump dijo en 2020 que promovería un nuevo plan de estudios escolar “pro estadounidense”.Oliver Contreras para The New York TimesPor qué funciona el revisionismo históricoSegún las investigaciones, la propaganda más eficaz de cualquier tipo, suele centrarse en una apelación a la identidad de algún grupo, como la raza o la religión.Hay un experimento famoso: a la gente se le da un examen, se le dice su puntuación y luego se le pide que califique la objetividad del examen. Las personas a las que se les dice que han obtenido una buena puntuación tienden a calificar la prueba de justa y rigurosa. Las personas a las que se les dice que han obtenido una mala puntuación son más propensas a considerar que el examen es tendencioso o inexacto.Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 10The House investigation. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How Biden and Boris Johnson Reached the Same Place on Virus Policy

      by

      Two different leaders with differing approaches landed on a policy of coexisting with the virus. Analysts say they had little choice.LONDON — On the evening of Dec. 21, Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared from 10 Downing Street to tell anxious Britons they could “go ahead with their Christmas plans,” despite a surge in new coronavirus cases. At nearly the same moment, President Biden took to a White House podium to give Americans a similar greenlight.It was a striking, if unintended, display of synchronicity from two leaders who began with very different approaches to the pandemic, to say nothing of politics. Their convergence in how to handle the Omicron variant says a lot about how countries are confronting the virus, more than two years after it first threatened the world.For Mr. Johnson and Mr. Biden, analysts said, the politics and science of Covid have nudged them toward a policy of trying to live with the virus rather than putting their countries back on war footing. It is a highly risky strategy: Hospitals across Britain and parts of the United States are already close to overrun with patients. But for now, it is better than the alternative: Shutting down their economies again.“A Conservative prime minister trying to deal in a responsible way with Covid is very different than a Democratic president trying to deal responsibly with Covid,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster in Washington. And yet, he said, their options are no longer all that different.“From both a medical perspective and a political perspective,” Mr. Garin said, “there’s not as strong an imperative for people to hunker down in the way they were hunkering down a year ago.”President Biden, taking office, promised to pay greater heed to scientific advice and embraced measures like “expanded masking, testing and social distancing.”Al Drago for The New York TimesSome analysts say the two leaders had little choice. Both are dealing with lockdown-weary populations. Both have made headway in vaccinating their citizens, though Britain remains ahead of the United States. And both have seen their popularity erode as their early promises to vanquish the virus wilted.Several of Mr. Biden’s former scientific advisers this week publicly urged him to overhaul his strategy to shift the focus from banishing the virus to a “new normal” of coexisting with it. That echoes Mr. Johnson’s words when he lifted restrictions last July. “We must ask ourselves,” he said, “‘When will we be able to return to normal?’”Devi Sridhar, an American scientist who heads the global health program at the University of Edinburgh, said, “The scientific community has broad consensus now that we have to use the tools we have to stay open and avoid the lockdowns of 2020 and 2021. But it’s not easy at all, as we are seeing.”The alignment of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Biden is significant because Britain has often served as a Covid test case for the United States — a few weeks ahead in seeing the effects of a new wave and a model, for good or ill, in how to respond to it.Miami this week. Several of Mr. Biden’s former scientific advisers have publicly urged him to shift the focus from banishing the virus to a “new normal” of coexisting with it.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesIt was the first country to approve a vaccine and the fastest major economy to roll it out. Its frightening projections, from Imperial College London, about how many people could die in an uncontrolled pandemic helped push a reluctant Mr. Johnson and an equally reluctant President Donald J. Trump to call for social distancing restrictions in their countries.That Mr. Johnson and Mr. Trump initially resisted such measures was hardly a surprise, given their ideological kinship as populist politicians. When Mr. Johnson locked down Britain, several days after his European neighbors, he promised to “send the virus packing” in 12 weeks. Mr. Trump likewise vowed that Covid, “like a miracle,” would soon disappear. Both later suffered through bouts with the disease.Mr. Biden, taking office, promised a different approach, one that paid greater heed to scientific advice and embraced difficult measures like “expanded masking, testing and social distancing.” Though Mr. Johnson never flouted scientific advice like Mr. Trump, he was sunnier than Mr. Biden, continuing to promise that the crisis would soon pass.For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the major obstacle is not defiant regional leaders or the opposition but members of his own Conservative Party.Pool photo by Jack HillBut both he and Mr. Biden have languished politically as new variants have made Covid far more stubborn than they had hoped. Last July 4, with new cases dropping and vaccination rates rising, Mr. Biden claimed the United States had gained “the upper hand” on the virus. Weeks later, the Delta variant was sweeping through the country.In England, with nearly 70 percent of adults having had two doses of a vaccine, Mr. Johnson lifted virtually all social-distancing rules on July 19, a bold — some said reckless — move that the London tabloids nicknamed “Freedom Day.” After a midsummer lull in cases that appeared to vindicate Mr. Johnson’s gamble, the Omicron variant has now driven new cases in Britain to more than 150,000 a day.Mr. Biden and Mr. Johnson have different powers in dealing with the pandemic. As prime minister, Mr. Johnson can order lockdowns in England, a step he has taken twice since his first lockdown in March 2020. In the United States, those restrictions are in the hands of governors, a few of whom, like the Florida Republican Ron DeSantis, have become vocal critics of Mr. Biden’s approach.For Mr. Johnson, the major obstacle is not defiant regional leaders or the opposition but members of his own Conservative Party, who fiercely oppose further lockdowns and have rebelled against even modest moves in that direction.Riders in the London tube last month. The Omicron variant has now driven new cases in Britain to more than 150,000 a day.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesThe prime minister has kept open the possibility of further restrictions. But analysts say that given his eroding popularity, he no longer has the political capital to persuade his party to go along with an economically damaging lockdown, even if scientists recommended it.Mr. Johnson is “essentially now a prisoner of his more hawkish cabinet colleagues and the 100 or so MPs who seem to be allergic to any kind of public health restrictions,” said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London. They “just feel that the state has grown too big in trying to combat Covid and that they really don’t want the government to grow any bigger,” Mr. Bale said.Some British analysts draw a comparison between red-state governors like Mr. DeSantis and Conservative lawmakers from the “red wall,” former Labour strongholds in the Midlands and the north of England that Mr. Johnson’s Tories swept in the 2019 election with his promise to “Get Brexit done.”Las Vegas Boulevard during a lockdown in May 2020. Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesThese are not low-tax, small-government conservatives in the tradition of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, but right-leaning populists who model themselves on Mr. Trump and the Mr. Johnson who championed the Brexit vote — voters the prime minister would need to win re-election.Some critics argue that Mr. Biden and Mr. Johnson are both out of step with their countries. Britons have proven far more tolerant of lockdowns than the lawmakers in the prime minister’s party. In parts of the United States, by contrast, popular resistance to lockdowns is widespread and deeply entrenched.“Biden suffers from seeming to do too much and Boris suffers from seeming to do too little,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who was a classmate of Mr. Johnson’s at Oxford University. “Biden would have done a better job if he had led Britain, and Boris would have done a better job if he led the U.S.”Ice skaters in London last month.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesMr. Biden, unlike Mr. Johnson, does not face an internal party rebellion on his Covid policy. But the continued grip of the pandemic has sapped the president’s poll ratings, stoking fears of a Republican landslide in the midterm elections. The calls for change from members of Mr. Biden’s former scientific brain-trust, some said, reflected concerns that his Covid messaging was lagging reality.Others pointed out that the president’s determination to keep schools and businesses open, despite the soaring number of cases, signaled that a change in thinking was underway in the White House — if a few months later than that in Downing Street.“When Biden says we ought to be concerned but not panicked, he’s meeting Americans where they are,” Mr. Garin, the Democratic pollster, said. “He’s also meeting the science where it is.”Stephen Castle contributed reporting. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Cyber Ninjas, Derided for Arizona Vote Review, Says It Is Shutting Down

      by

      The organization that conducted the widely derided review of the presidential vote in Arizona’s largest county said it was insolvent and had laid off its employees.For a company that has had its share of bad weeks, Cyber Ninjas, the Florida firm behind the widely derided review of Arizona’s 2020 presidential vote, may finally have hit bottom.On Thursday, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in Phoenix delivered a detailed four-hour livestreamed rebuttal of all the firm’s claims, showing that all, except one involving 50 votes, were either mistaken, misleading or outright false.That same day, a superior court judge cited the company for contempt after it refused to surrender records of its vote review to The Arizona Republic, which is seeking them under a freedom of information request. He levied a $50,000-a-day fine on the firm until it produces the records.By week’s end, lawyers said the firm was insolvent and had laid off its employees, including Doug Logan, its chief executive and onetime proponent of a baseless theory that the state’s voting machines had been rigged.The shutdown was confirmed on Friday by a spokesman, Rod Thomson, who said it was unclear whether the company would declare bankruptcy.That did not impress the judge, John Hannah, who suggested that the shutdown might be designed “to leave the Cyber Ninjas entity as an empty piñata for all of us to swing at.” The official Maricopa County Twitter account seized on the description, declaring that “an empty piñata is a pretty accurate description of the ‘audit’ as a whole.”But whether the exercise was a complete failure is another matter. Experts say it played a role in accomplishing a more fundamental political goal: fueling anger over the accuracy and integrity of the 2020 election among former President Donald J. Trump’s most ardent backers.The six-month, $5.6 million review of the 2.1 million votes cast in Arizona’s largest county was ordered up last year by the Republican-controlled State Senate after supporters of Mr. Trump insisted that his narrow loss in the state was the result of fraud.It became something of a national punchline in September after the review concluded that President Biden actually won by a greater margin than official tallies showed.Still, the review and its supporters insisted that the election was suspect, citing 75 potential irregularities they said the Cyber Ninjas were unable to resolve.The rebuttal by the five-member Board of Supervisors, four of them Republicans, was striking both for its detail and its bluntness.The Cyber Ninjas have laid off their employees, including Doug Logan, the organization’s chief executive.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesA 93-page printed version said that a review of the Cyber Ninjas’ claims of irregularities found only 37 potentially questionable ballots among the 53,304 that had been labeled suspect. Those were referred to the state attorney general, a Republican who has been asked to review the organization’s claims.Out of the 75 claims of irregularities, the county said, the only one that could be valid involved 50 ballots that may have been double-counted. That error would not have affected the outcome of any race in the November 2020 election, the county said.The county supervisors had denounced the Senate’s review for months as partisan theatrics aimed at mollifying the substantial far-right share of the state’s Republican voters. But the board’s chairman, Bill Gates, a Republican, went further on Thursday, drawing a straight line between tolerance for “extreme misinformation” and political violence like the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.Referring to protesters who stormed the building, Mr. Gates said that “many of these people did it because they believed they were saving their country from an election that they had been told had been stolen.”“Many people in positions of power, they fed into this, for they simply turned a blind eye,” he added. “They’ve listened to the loud few and told them what they want to hear, and that’s the easy thing to do. But here, we don’t do what’s easy. We do what’s right.”The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 6Numerous inquiries. 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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      La influencia de Donald Trump a un año del asalto al Capitolio

      by

      Su influencia sobre el partido muestra, una vez más, que el expresidente es capaz de sobreponerse a casi cualquier periodo de indignación, sin importar su intensidad.Hace un año, el mismo día en que partidarios febriles de Donald Trump irrumpieron en el Capitolio de Estados Unidos en una revuelta violenta que mancilló el símbolo de la democracia estadounidense, la dirigencia del Comité Nacional Republicano estaba reunida en el hotel Ritz-Carlton de la Isla de Amelia, Florida, a unos 1120 kilómetros de distancia.En Washington, el futuro político de Trump jamás se había visto tan sombrío, y se debilitaba con rapidez. Había perdido las elecciones y, a modo de protesta, su personal de alto nivel estaba renunciando. Sus aliados más importantes lo repudiaban. Pronto sería expulsado de las redes sociales.Pero los cimientos de un renacimiento político, al menos dentro de su partido, estuvieron allí desde el principio.Con los vidrios rotos y los escombros aún desperdigados por las instalaciones del Capitolio, más de la mitad de los republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes votaron en contra de la certificación de las elecciones, repitiendo el falso argumento de fraude planteado por Trump. Aunque el comité nacional del partido redactó un comunicado en el que condenaba la violencia (sin mencionar el nombre de Trump), algunos miembros del comité presionaron para que se añadiera una muestra de solidaridad hacia la perspectiva de la muchedumbre que asaltó el Capitolio. Sus peticiones tuvieron que ser rechazadas.La mañana siguiente, Trump hizo una llamada por altavoz a la reunión del comité. “¡Lo amamos!”, gritaron algunos de los asistentes.“Muchos de quienes venimos de los estados del noreste solo resoplamos”, dijo Bill Palatucci, integrante del comité nacional republicano procedente de Nueva Jersey y un importante detractor de Trump dentro del partido. Pero fue más común la postura de miembros como Corey Steinmetz, de Wyoming, quien dijo en una entrevista que culpar a Trump por los acontecimientos del 6 de enero “no fue más que una mentira desde el principio”.En este momento, el Partido Republicano le sigue perteneciendo en gran medida a Trump, y ha transformado sus mentiras sobre el robo de las elecciones en un artículo de fe, e incluso en una prueba de fuego que intenta imponer con los candidatos que respalda en las elecciones primarias de 2022. Es el patrocinador más codiciado del partido, su principal recaudador de fondos y quien va adelante en las encuestas para la nominación presidencial de 2024.Trump también es una figura profundamente divisiva, impopular entre el electorado más general y bajo investigación por sus prácticas empresariales y su intromisión en las actividades de las autoridades electorales en el condado de Fulton, Georgia. Sigue siendo el mismo político cuya Casa Blanca presenció cuatro años de derrotas devastadoras para los republicanos, entre ellas las de la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado. Y pese a que unos cuantos republicanos dispersos alertan de manera pública que el partido no debería ceñirse a él, son más quienes, en privado, se preocupan por las consecuencias.No obstante, a un año de incitar el asalto al Capitolio para frustrar por la fuerza la certificación de las elecciones, su poder inigualable dentro del Partido Republicano es un testimonio de su influencia constante en la lealtad de las bases del partido.Su regreso —si acaso se necesitaba entre los republicanos— es el ejemplo más reciente de una lección permanente de su turbulenta etapa en la política: que Trump puede sobrevivir a casi cualquier periodo de indignación, sin importar su intensidad.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?Los reflectores apuntan a otra parte. El escándalo se desvanece. Y luego, él reescribe la historia.El relato distorsionado que Trump ha creado en torno al 6 de enero es que “la verdadera insurrección tuvo lugar el 3 de noviembre”, el día en que perdió unas elecciones que fueron libres y justas.Hubo un breve momento, como consecuencia del asalto del 6 de enero, en el que los dirigentes republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado tuvieron la oportunidad de cortar por lo sano con Trump, mientras los demócratas se apresuraban para llevarlo a juicio político.“No cuenten conmigo”, había dicho en el Senado Lindsey Graham, senador republicano por Carolina del Sur que era un aliado incondicional de Trump. “Ya basta”.Pero a los votantes republicanos no les afectó tanto como a algunos legisladores republicanos que apenas lograron escapar de la violencia ese día y se encontraban en un momento decisivo. Una encuesta de AP-NORC reveló que después de un mes, a principios de febrero de 2021, solo el 11 por ciento de los republicanos dijeron que Trump tenía mucha o bastante responsabilidad por el asalto al Capitolio; en la actualidad, esa cifra es del 22 por ciento.Los políticos republicanos se realinearon con rapidez para coincidir con la opinión pública. En menos de una semana, Graham estaba de nuevo al lado de Trump en el avión presidencial y, el año pasado, en repetidas ocasiones visitó los campos de golf de Trump para ser visto con el expresidente.Tal vez el primer apoyo renovado a Trump que tuvo mayores consecuencias provino de Kevin McCarthy, el líder republicano de la Cámara de Representantes que el 13 de enero había dicho que Trump “tiene responsabilidad” por la revuelta. Para finales del mes, ya iba en un avión con destino a Mar-a-Lago para intentar hacer las paces.Un artículo sobre la reunión privada se publicó antes de tiempo. “¿Tú la filtraste?”, le dijo Trump a McCarthy dos veces, según dos personas informadas sobre la discusión. McCarthy dijo que no.Trump sonrió sutilmente y se encogió de hombros, con lo que parecía reconocer que McCarthy no había sido quien había filtrado la reunión. “Pero es bueno para los dos, Kevin”, dijo Trump. Un portavoz de McCarthy se negó a comentar, mientras que un portavoz de Trump negó que se hubiera producido ese intercambio.Después, el comité de acción política (PAC, por su sigla en inglés) de Trump publicó una foto de los dos juntos.Dentro del Senado, el líder republicano, Mitch McConnell había sido más firme al acusar a Trump. “El presidente Trump es el responsable, en términos prácticos y éticos, de provocar los acontecimientos de este día”, declaró en un discurso en el pleno del Senado y añadió: “El líder del mundo libre no puede pasar semanas vociferando que fuerzas sombrías nos están robando el país y luego parecer sorprendido cuando la gente le cree y hace cosas imprudentes”.Pero al final, McConnell votó por absolver a Trump en su juicio político cuando se le acusó de exhortar a la insurrección.Ahora Trump y McConnell no se dirigen la palabra, pese a que el senador por Florida Rick Scott, quien encabeza el órgano de campaña del Partido Republicano en el Senado, ha estado muy atento con Trump e incluso le otorgó el nuevo premio de “Defensor de la libertad” en un viaje que realizó en abril a Mar-a-Lago.Ese mismo fin de semana, en un evento de recaudación de fondos del Comité Nacional Republicano, Trump destrozó a McConnell mientras hablaba con donadores al proferir un burdo insulto a su inteligencia.Al salir del cargo, Trump había dicho en un momento de ira que crearía un tercer partido, aunque cerró la posibilidad a esa idea en su primer discurso pospresidencial a fines de febrero, en la Conferencia de Acción Política Conservadora de activistas pro-Trump.En cambio, dijo, planeaba retomar el dominio del Partido Republicano y purgarlo de sus críticos.“Deshacerme de todos ellos”, dijo.Trump ya ha apoyado a candidatos en casi 100 contiendas de las elecciones intermedias y ha instituido la temporada de elecciones primarias de 2022 como un periodo de venganza contra los republicanos que se atrevieron a contrariarlo. A algunos asesores les preocupa que su amplia serie de respaldos lo exponga a posibles derrotas contundentes que podrían implicar un debilitamiento de su influencia en el electorado republicano.Sin embargo, Trump ha reclutado contrincantes para sus detractores más fuertes del partido, como Liz Cheney, representante por Wyoming, quien fue expulsada de la dirigencia de la Cámara de Representantes por rehusarse, en sus propias palabras, a “difundir las perniciosas mentiras de Trump” sobre las elecciones de 2020.Whit Ayres, un experimentado encuestador republicano, señaló que el respaldo de Trump tiene mucho peso en las primarias, pero es “una peligrosa arma de dos filos” en los distritos indecisos.Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 10The House investigation. More