Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump Represents a ‘Trifecta of Danger’

      by

      Brian Klaas, a political scientist at University College London, captures the remarkable nature of the 2024 presidential election in an Oct. 1 essay, “The Case for Amplifying Trump’s Insanity.”Klaas argues that the presidential contest now pitsA 77-year-old racist, misogynist bigot who has been found liable for rape, who incited a deadly, violent insurrection aimed at overturning a democratic election, who has committed mass fraud for personal enrichment, who is facing 91 separate counts of felony criminal charges against him, and who has overtly discussed his authoritarian strategies for governing if he returns to poweragainst “an 80-year-old with mainstream Democratic Party views who sometimes misspeaks or trips.”“One of those two candidates,” Klaas notes, “faces relentless newspaper columns and TV pundit ‘takes’ arguing that he should drop out of the race. (Spoiler alert: it’s somehow *not* the racist authoritarian sexual abuse fraudster facing 91 felony charges).”Klaas asks:What is going on? How is it possible that the leading candidate to become president of the United States can float the prospect of executing a general and the media response is … crickets?How is it possible that it’s not front page news when a man who soon may return to power calls for law enforcement to kill people for minor crimes? And why do so few people question Trump’s mental acuity rather than Biden’s, when Trump proposes delusional, unhinged plans for forest management and warns his supporters that Biden is going to lead us into World War II (which would require a time machine), or wrongly claims that he defeated Barack Obama in 2016?The media, Klaas argues, has adopted a policy in covering Trump of: “Don’t amplify him! You’re just spreading his message.”In Klaas’s view, newspapers and television have succumbed to what he calls the “banality of crazy,” ignoring “even the most dangerous policy proposals by an authoritarian who is on the cusp of once again becoming the most powerful man in the world — precisely because it happens, like clockwork, almost every day.”This approach, according to Klaas,has backfired. It’s bad for democracy. The “Don’t Amplify Him” argument is disastrous. We need to amplify Trump’s vile rhetoric more, because it will turn persuadable voters off to his cruel message.Looking over the eight-and-a-half years during which Trump has been directly engaged in presidential politics, it’s not as if there were no warning signs.Three months after Trump took office, in April 2017, a conference called “A Duty to Warn” was held at the Yale School of Medicine.The conference resulted in a best-selling book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.” A sampling of the chapter titles gives the flavor:“Our Witness to Malignant Normality,” by Robert Jay Lifton.“Unbridled and Extreme Hedonism: How the Leader of the Free World Has Proven Time and Again That He Is Unfit for Duty,” by Philip Zimbardo and Rosemary Sword.“Pathological Narcissism and Politics: a Lethal Combination,” by Craig Malkin.In a review of that book, “Twilight of American Sanity: a Psychiatrist Analyzes the Age of Trump” and “Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire, a 500-Year History,” Carlos Lozada, now a Times Opinion columnist, wrote in The Washington Post that the political elite in Washington was increasingly concerned about Trump’s mindset:“I think he’s crazy,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) confided to his colleague Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in a July exchange inadvertently caught on a microphone. “I’m worried,” she replied …. Even some Republicans have grown more blunt, with Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) recently suggesting that Trump “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence” to succeed as president.The warnings that Donald Trump is dangerous and unstable began well before his 2016 election and have become increasingly urgent.These warnings came during the 2016 primary and general campaigns, continued throughout Trump’s four years in the White House, and remain relentless as he gets older and more delusional about the outcome of the 2020 election.I asked some of those who first warned about the dangers Trump poses what their views are now.Leonard L. Glass, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, emailed me:He acts like he’s impervious, “a very stable genius,” but we know he is rageful, grandiose, vengeful, impulsive, devoid of empathy, boastful, inciting of violence, and thin-skinned. At times it seems as if he cannot control himself or his hateful speech. We need to wonder if these are the precursors of a major deterioration in his character defenses.Glass continued:If Trump — in adopting language that he cannot help knowing replicates that of Hitler (especially the references to opponents as “vermin” and “poisoning the blood of our country”), we have to wonder if he has crossed into “new terrain.” That terrain, driven by grandiosity and dread of exposure (e.g., at the trials) could signal the emergence of an even less constrained, more overtly vicious and remorseless Trump who, should he regain the presidency, would, indeed act like the authoritarians he praises. Absent conscientious aides who could contain him (as they barely did last time), this could lead to the literal shedding of American blood on American soil by a man who believes he is “the only one” and the one, some believe, is a purifying agent of God and in whom they see no evil nor do they doubt.In recent months, Trump has continued to add to the portrait Glass paints of him.In March, he told loyalists in Waco, Texas:I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.“With you at my side,” Trump went on to say,we will totally obliterate the deep state, we will banish the warmongers from our government, we will drive out the globalists, and we will cast out the communists and Marxists, we will throw off the corrupt political class, we will beat the Democrats, we will rout the fake news media, we will stand up to the RINOs, and we will defeat Joe Biden and every single Democrat.At the California Republican Convention on Sept. 29, Trump told the gathering that under his administration shoplifters will be subject to extrajudicial execution: “We will immediately stop all the pillaging and theft. Very simply, if you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store.”Trump has continued to forge ahead, pledging to a crowd of supporters in Claremont N.H. on Nov. 11: “We will root out the communists, Marxist fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible, they’ll do anything whether legally or illegally to destroy America and to destroy the American dream.”Nothing captures Trump’s megalomania and narcissism more vividly than his openly declared agenda, should he win back the White House next year.On Nov. 6, Isaac Arnsdorf, Josh Dawsey and Devlin Barrett reported in The Washington Post that Trump “wants the Justice Department to investigate onetime officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, as well as his ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley.”Trump, the Post noted, dismissed federal criminal indictments as “third-world-country stuff, ‘arrest your opponent,’ ” and then claimed that the indictments gave him license, if re-elected, to do the same thing: “I can do that, too.”A week later, my Times colleagues Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage and Jonathan Swan, quoted Trump in “How Trump and His Allies Plan to Wield Power in 2025”: “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” adding, “I will totally obliterate the deep state.”In an earlier story, Haberman, Savage and Swan reported that Trump allies are preparing to reissue an executive order known as Schedule F, which Trump promulgated at the end of his presidency, but that never went into effect.Schedule F, the reporters wrote,would have empowered his administration to strip job protections from many career federal employees — who are supposed to be hired based on merit and cannot be arbitrarily fired. While the order said agencies should not hire or fire Schedule F employees based on political affiliation, it effectively would have made these employees more like political appointees who can be fired at will.Schedule F would politicize posts in the senior civil service authorized to oversee the implementation of policy, replacing job security with the empowerment of the administration to hire and fire as it chose, a topic I wrote about in an earlier column.I asked Joshua D. Miller, a professor of psychology at the University of Georgia, whether he thought Trump’s “vermin” comment represented a tipping point, an escalation in his willingness to attack opponents. Miller replied by email: “My bet is we’re seeing the same basic traits, but their manifestation has been ratcheted up by the stress of his legal problems and also by some sense of invulnerability in that he has yet to face any dire consequences for his previous behavior.”Miller wrote that he haslong thought that Trump’s narcissism was actually distracting us from his psychopathic traits. I view the two as largely the same but with psychopathy bringing problems with disinhibition (impulsivity; failure to delay gratification, irresponsibility, etc.) to the table and Trump seems rather high on those traits along with those related to narcissism (e.g., entitlement, exploitativeness), pathological lying, grandiosity, etc.).I asked Donald R. Lynam, a professor of psychology at Purdue, the same question, and he emailed his reply: “The escalation is quite consistent with grandiose narcissism. Trump is reacting more and more angrily to what he perceives as his unfair treatment and failure to be admired, appreciated and adored in the way that he believes is his due.”Grandiose narcissists, Lynam continued, “feel they are special and that normal rules don’t apply to them. They require attention and admiration,” adding “this behavior is also consistent with psychopathy which is pretty much grandiose narcissism plus poor impulse control.”Most of the specialists I contacted see Trump’s recent behavior and public comments as part of an evolving process.“Trump is an aging malignant narcissist,” Aaron L. Pincus, a professor of psychology at Penn State, wrote in an email. “As he ages, he appears to be losing impulse control and is slipping cognitively. So we are seeing a more unfiltered version of his pathology. Quite dangerous.”In addition, Pincus continued, “Trump seems increasingly paranoid, which can also be a reflection of his aging brain and mental decline.”The result? “Greater hostility and less ability to reflect on the implications and consequences of his behavior.”Edwin B. Fisher, a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, made the case in an email that Trump’s insistence on the validity of his own distorted claims has created a vicious circle, pressuring him to limit his close relations to those willing to confirm his beliefs:His isolation is much of his own making. The enormous pressures he puts on others for confirmation and unquestioning loyalty and his harsh, often vicious responses to perceived disloyalty lead to a strong, accelerating dynamic of more and more pressure for loyalty, harsher and harsher judgment of the disloyal, and greater and greater shrinking of pool of supporters.At the same time, Fisher continued, Trump is showing signs of cognitive deterioration,the confusion of Sioux Falls and Sioux City, several times referring to having beaten and/or now running against Obama, or the odd garbling of words on a number of occasions for it seems like about a year now. Add to these the tremendous pressure and threat he is under and you have, if you will, a trifecta of danger — lifelong habit, threat and possible cognitive decline. They each exacerbate the other two.Fisher noted that he anticipated the movement toward increased isolation in his 2017 contribution to the book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” which I mentioned earlier:Reflecting the interplay of personal and social, narcissistic concerns for self and a preoccupation with power may initially shape and limit those invited to the narcissistic leader’s social network, with sensitivity to slights and angry reactions to them further eroding that network.This process of exclusion, Fisher wrote, becomes self-reinforcing:A disturbing feature of this kind of dynamic is that it tends to feed on itself. The more the individual selects for those who flatter him and avoid confrontation, and the more those who have affronted and been castigated fall away, the narrower and more homogenous his network becomes, further flattering the individual but eventually becoming a thin precipice. President Nixon, drunk and reportedly conversing with the pictures on the White House walls, and praying with Henry Kissinger during his last nights in office, comes to mind.Craig Malkin, a lecturer in psychology at Harvard Medical School, raised a separate concern in an email responding to my inquiry:If the evidence emerging proves true — that Trump knew he lost and continued to push the big lie anyway — his character problems go well beyond simple narcissism and reach troubling levels of psychopathy. And psychopaths are far more concerned with their own power than preserving truth, democracy or even lives.In 2019, leaked memos written by Britain’s ambassador to the United States, Kim Darroch, warned British leaders that the Trump presidency could “crash and burn” and “end in disgrace,” adding: “We don’t really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept.”In 2020, Pew Research reported that “Trump Ratings Remain Low Around Globe.” Pew found:Trump receives largely negative reviews from publics around the world. Across 32 countries surveyed by Pew Research Center, a median of 64 percent say they do not have confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, while just 29 percent express confidence in the American leader. Anti-Trump sentiments are especially common in Western Europe: Roughly three-in-four or more lack confidence in Trump in Germany, Sweden, France, Spain and the Netherlands.A recent editorial in The Economist, carried the headline: “Donald Trump Poses the Biggest Danger to the World in 2024.” “A second Trump term,” the editorial concludes:would be a watershed in a way the first was not. Victory would confirm his most destructive instincts about power. His plans would encounter less resistance. And because America will have voted him in while knowing the worst, its moral authority would decline. The election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters in just a handful of states. In 2024 the fate of the world will depend on their ballots.Klaas, who opened this column, concludes that a crucial factor in Trump’s political survival is the failure of the media in this country to recognize that the single most important story in the presidential election, a story that dominates over all others, is the enormous threat Trump poses:The man who, as president, incited a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in order to overturn an election is again openly fomenting political violence while explicitly endorsing authoritarian strategies should he return to power. That is the story of the 2024 election. Everything else is just window dressing.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: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      For Election Workers, Fentanyl-Laced Letters Signal a Challenging Year

      by

      As overheated rhetoric and threats rise, people are leaving election jobs in record numbers.For the people who run elections at thousands of local offices nationwide, 2024 was never going to be an easy year. But the recent anonymous mailing of powder-filled envelopes to election offices in five states offers new hints of how hard it could be.The letters, sent to offices in Washington State, Oregon, Nevada, California and Georgia this month, are under investigation by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the F.B.I. Several of them appear to have been laced with fentanyl; at least two contained a vague message calling to “end elections now.” The letters are a public indicator of what some election officials say is a fresh rise in threats to their safety and the functioning of the election system. And they presage the pressure-cooker environment that election officials will face next year in a contest for the White House that could chart the future course of American democracy.“The system is going to be tested in every possible way, whether it’s voter registration, applications for ballots, poll workers, the mail, drop boxes, election results websites,” said Tammy Patrick, chief executive for programs at the National Association of Election Officials. “Every way in which our elections are administered is going to be tested somewhere, at some time, during 2024.”Ms. Patrick and other experts said they were confident that those staffing the next election would weather those stresses, just as poll workers soldiered through a 2020 vote at the height of a global pandemic that all but rewrote the playbook for national elections.But they did not minimize the challenges. Instead, they said, in some crucial ways — such as the escalation of violent political rhetoric, and the increasing number of seasoned election officials who are throwing in the towel — the coming election year will impose greater strains than in any of the past.Temporary employees at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center in Phoenix processed mail-in ballots last year.Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York TimesBy several measures, an unprecedented number of top election officials have retired or quit since 2020, many in response to rising threats and partisan interference in their jobs.Turnover in election jobs doubled over the past year, according to an annual survey released last week by the Elections & Voting Information Center at Reed College in Portland, Ore. Nearly one-third of election officials said that they knew someone who had left an election post, at least in part because of fears over safety.Another recent report by Issue One, a pro-democracy advocacy group, said that 40 percent of chief election administrators in 11 Western states — in all, more than 160 officials, typically in county positions — had retired or quit since 2020.“They feel unsafe,” said Aaron Ockerman, executive director of the Ohio Association of Elections Officials. “They have great amounts of stress. They don’t feel respected by the state or the public. So they find other employment.”A certain number of departures is normal, and in many cases, experienced subordinates can take over the tasks.But departures can create collateral damage: Promoting an insider to a top elections job leaves a vacancy to be filled at a time when it is increasingly difficult to recruit newcomers to a profession that is only becoming more stressful. Experts also worry that the aura of nastiness and even danger attached to election work will drive away volunteers, many of them older Americans, who are essential to elections in all states except the handful in which residents largely vote by mail.Each election requires many hundreds of thousands of volunteers to staff polls. At a recent meeting of election administrators, roughly half were “really worried” about recruiting enough help for next year’s elections, said David J. Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C.Experts worry that threats to election workers could drive away volunteers, many of whom are older Americans.Anna Watts for The New York TimesLike Ms. Patrick, of the election officials association, Mr. Becker said he expected that any election-season staffing problems next year would be localized, not widespread. He noted, for example, that groups that are new to recruiting poll workers, such as sports teams, universities and private businesses, are helping to find volunteers.One wild card is the extent to which threats to election workers and other attempts to disrupt the vote will ramp up as the presidential-year political atmosphere kicks in.Harassment and threats against election officials were widely reported in the months after former President Donald J. Trump began to claim falsely that fraud had cost him a victory in the 2020 election. But election officials say that the threats have not stopped since then.In June, the downtown office of Paul López, the Denver clerk and recorder, was attacked overnight with a fusillade of bullets, pockmarking the building’s facade and a ballot drop box and bursting through a window into an office cubicle. And from mid-July to mid-August, the Maricopa County elections office in Phoenix recorded 140 violent threats, including one warning that officials would be “tied and dragged by a car,” Reuters reported.The challenges go beyond threats to demands that can make the requirements of the job feel limitless.In the last year, for example, election offices nationwide have been bombarded with requests, usually from election skeptics and allies of Mr. Trump, for millions of pages of public records relating to voter rolls and internal election operations. Similarly, offices in some states were hit this year with challenges to the legitimacy of thousands of voter registrations.In both cases, the ostensible purpose was to serve as a check on the integrity of the ballot. The practical effect — and sometimes the intent, experts say — has been to disrupt election preparations and, in some cases, to make it harder for some people to vote.“It’s impacting thousands of election officers,” Ms. Patrick said. “It isn’t the case that those who are driving the narrative are numerous. But we know there are large numbers of people listening to them and reiterating what they hear.”Election offices nationwide have been bombarded with requests for millions of pages of public records relating to voter rolls and internal election operations.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesSome of the language is beyond the bounds of normal political discourse.Mr. Trump, in a speech in New Hampshire this month used language more in keeping with fascism than democracy when he threatened to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections.”Such toxic language has an effect, said Rachel Kleinfeld, an expert on political violence and the rule of law at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.“There is a very clear link between the rhetoric of politicians and other leaders who both dehumanize and posit another group as a threat to incidents of political violence,” she said. “Trump himself seems to have a particular knack for this.”“What’s distressing,” Ms. Kleinfeld added, “is not just that election officials are quite worried by these threats, but that they’re not dissipating” in what should have been a quiet period between national elections.Ms. Patrick said she was distressed as well. “I feel like we’re in a very tenuous time, but there are bright lights to see,” she said. “In 2022, we had candidates who lost and conceded admirably and civilly. This month, we saw people continuing to serve as poll workers and people raising their hands to run for office on platforms of truth and legitimacy. As long as we have people who are willing to believe in facts, we’ll get through this.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      El lenguaje de Trump alarma por su tendencia al autoritarismo

      by

      El expresidente está centrando sus ataques más feroces en sus oponentes políticos internos, lo que genera nuevas preocupaciones entre los expertos en autocracia.Donald Trump llegó al poder en Estados Unidos con campañas políticas que atacaban sobre todo objetivos del exterior, como la inmigración procedente de países de mayoría musulmana y del sur de la frontera con México.Pero ahora, en su tercera campaña presidencial, ha dirigido algunos de sus ataques más despiadados y degradantes contra sus contrincantes a nivel nacional.Durante un discurso en el Día de los Veteranos, Trump utilizó un lenguaje que recordaba a los líderes autoritarios que ascendieron al poder en Alemania e Italia en la década de 1930, al degradar a sus adversarios políticos con palabras como “alimañas” que debían ser “erradicadas”.“La amenaza de fuerzas externas es mucho menos siniestra, peligrosa y seria que la amenaza desde el interior”, dijo Trump.Este giro hacia el interior ha alarmado a los expertos en autocracia que desde hace tiempo están preocupados por los elogios de Trump a dictadores extranjeros y su desdén por los ideales democráticos. Dijeron que el enfoque cada vez más intenso del expresidente en los enemigos internos era un sello distintivo de los líderes totalitarios peligrosos.Académicos, demócratas y republicanos que no apoyan a Trump vuelven a preguntarse qué tanto se parece el exmandatario a los actuales autócratas en otros países y cómo se compara con los líderes autoritarios del pasado. Quizá lo más urgente sea que se pregunten si su giro retórico hacia una narrativa que suena más fascista solo es su más reciente provocación pública a la izquierda, una evolución de sus creencias o una revelación.“Hay ecos de la retórica fascista y son muy precisos”, dijo Ruth Ben-Ghiat, profesora de la Universidad de Nueva York que estudia el fascismo. “La estrategia general es hacia una evidente deshumanización para que el público no proteste tanto por lo que quieres hacer”.El giro de Trump se produce mientras él y sus aliados idean planes para un segundo mandato que cambiaría algunas de las normas más arraigadas de la democracia estadounidense y el Estado de derecho.Estas ambiciones incluyen utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus rivales políticos, planear una vasta expansión del poder presidencial y nombrar abogados alineados con su ideología en puestos clave para que respalden sus acciones polémicas.Los aliados de Trump tachan las preocupaciones de alarmismo y cínicos ataques políticos.Steven Cheung, un vocero de la campaña, respondió a las críticas sobre los comentarios de las “alimañas” con el argumento de que provenían de liberales reactivos cuya “triste y miserable existencia será aplastada cuando el presidente Trump regrese a la Casa Blanca”. Cheung no respondió a las solicitudes de comentarios para este artículo.Algunos expertos en autoritarismo comentaron que, aunque el lenguaje reciente de Trump ha empezado a parecerse al utilizado por líderes como Hitler o Benito Mussolini, no refleja del todo a los líderes fascistas del pasado. Sin embargo, afirman que presenta rasgos similares a los de los autócratas actuales, como el primer ministro húngaro, Viktor Orbán, o el presidente turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.Las opiniones relativamente aislacionistas de Trump son contrarias al ansia de imperio y expansión que caracterizó los gobiernos de Hitler en Alemania y Mussolini en Italia. Como presidente, nunca pudo utilizar al ejército con fines políticos y encontró resistencia cuando intentó desplegar a los soldados contra los manifestantes.“Es demasiado simplista referirse a él como neofascista o autócrata o cualquier otra cosa: Trump es Trump y no tiene una filosofía particular que yo haya visto después de cuatro años como presidente”, comentó el exsecretario de Defensa Chuck Hagel, un republicano que formó parte del gabinete del presidente Barack Obama después de servir 12 años como senador de Nebraska.A pesar de eso, el estilo de campaña de Trump es “condenadamente peligroso”, dijo Hagel.“Continúa arrinconando a la gente y dándole voz a la polarización en nuestro país y el verdadero peligro es que eso siga creciendo y se apodere de la mayoría del Congreso, los estados y los gobiernos”, continuó Hagel. “En una democracia deben hacerse concesiones, porque solo hay una alternativa para ello: un gobierno autoritario”.Las multitudes que acuden a los eventos de Trump han respaldado sus llamados a expulsar a la clase política tradicional, destruir los “medios de noticias falsos” y rehacer agencias gubernamentales como el Departamento de Justicia.Sophie Park para The New York TimesTrump se ha vuelto cada vez más desenfrenado con cada campaña, un patrón que va en paralelo con los crecientes riesgos personales y políticos para él.En 2016, era un candidato arriesgado y con poco que perder, y sus andanadas a menudo iban acompañadas de burlas que provocaban risas en el público. Cuatro años después, el enfoque de Trump se volvió más iracundo mientras buscaba aferrarse al poder, y su mandato terminó en el ataque contra el Capitolio perpetrado por sus seguidores.En este ciclo electoral, Trump enfrenta más presión que nunca. En parte, su decisión de iniciar una campaña temprana por la Casa Blanca fue un intento de protegerse de múltiples investigaciones, que desde entonces han formulado la mayor parte de los 91 cargos por delitos graves que enfrenta.Políticamente, Trump corre el riesgo de convertirse en un histórico perdedor en dos ocasiones. En los casi 168 años de historia del Partido Republicano, solo un candidato presidencial, Thomas Dewey, ha perdido dos candidaturas a la Casa Blanca.Los ataques de Trump abarcan desde las más altas esferas de la política hasta los burócratas de bajo nivel a los que ha considerado poco leales.Ha insinuado que el máximo general de la nación debería ser ejecutado y ha pedido la “terminación” de partes de la Constitución. Ha declarado que si recupera la Casa Blanca no tendrá “más remedio” que encarcelar a sus oponentes políticos.Ha puesto a prueba el sistema legal con ataques a la integridad del poder judicial, además de arremeter contra fiscales, jueces y, de manera más reciente, contra una asistente legal en su juicio por fraude en Nueva York, a quienes ha tachado de “parcialidad política” y de estar “fuera de control”.En general, las multitudes que asisten a los actos de Trump han apoyado sus llamados a expulsar a la clase política dominante y destruir los “medios de noticias falsas”. Sus seguidores no se inmutan cuando elogia a líderes como Orbán, el presidente de China, Xi Jinping, y el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin.De pie en medio de casi dos decenas de banderas estadounidenses en una celebración del Día de la Independencia en Carolina del Sur en julio, Trump prometió represalias contra Biden y su familia.“Estoy listo para la batalla”, dijo. La multitud le respondió con una sonora ovación.Los seguidores gritaron en señal de aprobación cuando Trump calificó a los demócratas en Washington como “un nido enfermo de gente que necesita ser limpiado, y limpiado de inmediato”.Mientras la base de seguidores de Trump sigue apoyándolo férreamente, su regreso a la Casa Blanca podría decidirse por cómo los votantes indecisos y los republicanos moderados responden a sus posturas. En 2020, esos votantes hundieron su candidatura en cinco estados clave que estaban disputados y causaron la derrota de los republicanos en las elecciones de mitad de mandato del año pasado y en las legislativas de este mes en Virginia.Pero Trump y su equipo se han animado ante los indicios de que esos votantes parecen estar más abiertos a su campaña de 2024. Una encuesta reciente de The New York Times y el Siena College reveló que Trump supera a Biden en cinco de los estados más competitivos.En varias ocasiones, Biden ha tratado de presentar a Trump como extremista; hace poco declaró que el expresidente estaba usando un lenguaje que “hace eco de las mismas frases utilizadas en la Alemania nazi”. Biden también señaló los comentarios xenófobos que Trump hizo el mes pasado durante una entrevista con The National Pulse, un sitio web conservador, en la que dijo que los inmigrantes estaban “envenenando la sangre” de Estados Unidos.“Hay muchas razones para estar en contra de Donald Trump, pero caray, no debería ser presidente”, dijo Biden en San Francisco, en un evento para recaudar fondos.La preocupación por Trump se extiende a algunos republicanos, aunque son minoría en el partido.“Está subiendo el tono y eso muy preocupante”, comentó el exgobernador por Ohio John Kasich, quien en 2016 se presentó a la candidatura presidencial republicana contra Trump. “Simplemente no hay límite para la ira y el odio en su retórica y este tipo de atmósfera venenosa ha bajado nuestros estándares y daña mucho nuestro país”, aseveró.Trump y su equipo se han sentido respaldados por las señales de que los votantes indecisos y los republicanos moderados, que ayudaron a frenar su candidatura a la reelección de 2020, ahora parecen estar más abiertos a su campaña de 2024.Jordan Gale para The New York TimesLa llegada de Trump al poder estuvo acompañada por debates sobre si su ascenso, y el de otros líderes de todo el mundo con opiniones políticas similares, indicaba un resurgimiento del fascismo.El fascismo generalmente se entiende como un sistema de gobierno autoritario y de extrema derecha en el que el hipernacionalismo es un componente central.También se caracteriza por el culto a la personalidad de un líder fuerte, la justificación de la violencia o las represalias contra los oponentes y la repetida denigración del Estado de derecho, dijo Peter Hayes, un historiador que ha estudiado el ascenso del fascismo.Los líderes fascistas del pasado apelaron a un sentimiento de victimización para justificar sus acciones, dijo. “La idea es: ‘Tenemos derecho porque hemos sido víctimas. Nos han engañado y robado’”, dijo.Encuestas recientes han sugerido que los estadounidenses pueden ser más tolerantes con los líderes que violan las normas establecidas. Una encuesta publicada el mes pasado por el Instituto Público de Investigación Religiosa encontró que el 38 por ciento de los estadounidenses apoyaban tener un presidente “dispuesto a romper algunas reglas” para “arreglar las cosas” en el país. Entre los republicanos encuestados, el 48 por ciento respaldó esa opinión.Jennifer Mercieca, profesora de la Universidad Texas A&M que ha investigado la retórica política, dijo que Trump había utilizado el lenguaje como un cincel para socavar las normas democráticas.“Normalmente, un presidente utilizaría la retórica de guerra con el fin de preparar al país para la guerra contra otro país”, dijo. “Donald Trump usa la retórica de guerra en temas nacionales”.Michael C. Bender es corresponsal político y autor de Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost. @MichaelCBenderMichael Gold es corresponsal político del Times y cubre las campañas de Donald Trump y otros candidatos a las elecciones presidenciales de 2024. Más de Michael Gold More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Colorado Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Trump 14th Amendment Case

      by

      A state judge ruled last week that the former president had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, but allowed him to remain on the ballot.The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to take up an appeal of a state judge’s ruling allowing former President Donald J. Trump to remain on the state’s primary ballot, in a nationwide battle over his eligibility to run for president again.Plaintiffs, citing Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it.Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled that Mr. Trump had engaged in insurrection with his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. But she allowed Mr. Trump to remain on the ballot anyway on the narrow grounds that the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment did not apply to the president of the United States.A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Steven Cheung, said in a statement after Judge Wallace’s ruling last week that it was “another nail in the coffin of the un-American ballot challenges.”The plaintiffs filed their appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court on Monday evening, and the court agreed to hear the case on an accelerated timetable. Mr. Trump’s lawyers must file a brief in the case by next Monday, and oral arguments are scheduled to begin on Dec. 6.Jena Griswold, the Colorado secretary of state and a Democrat, has previously said she would follow whatever ruling was in place on Jan. 5, 2024, the state’s deadline for certifying candidates on the ballot for the March 5 primary.Mario Nicolais, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that the fast pace of the court schedule indicated that “the Supreme Court has taken this with the seriousness that it requires,” adding that “we are confident that we will come away from the Colorado Supreme Court with a victory and that he will be barred from being on the ballot.” More

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      My Brother’s Thanksgiving Lament

      by

      Thanksgiving began as a time of prayer. We could use some prayers right now, in a country inflamed with hate and prejudice and generational mistrust. Americans are at each other’s throats, living in different realities, fraught by two brutal, calamitous wars. So, as this annus horribilis lurches to a close, with the hope that we can understand each other better, or at least eat pie together, here is the annual holiday column from a man I frequently disagree with, but always, love, my conservative brother, Kevin.****Less than a year before the country chooses a president, President Biden’s poll numbers are almost catastrophic. The overwhelming majority of voters say he is too old, and Donald Trump is beating him in five of six battleground states, according to one recent survey.While majorities of the country find both Trump and Biden unacceptable, Trump remains the Republican front-runner, bolstered by what his supporters see as overeager Democratic prosecutions. This scenario holds great peril for Republicans because Trump is the weakest candidate against Biden. He already lost to him in 2020 and the reflexive hatred he generates, especially among women, could boost Democratic turnout as only Trump could manage.Biden’s three years have been a disaster. An exorbitant round of unnecessary Covid spending sent inflation through the roof, leading to a destructive rise in interest rates and further squeezing consumers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Latino Business Advocate Stung by Misconduct Claims Resurfaces With ‘No Labels’

      by

      Javier Palomarez, who stepped down as chief of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce after he was accused of financial misconduct and sexual harassment, is working with the centrist group.No Labels, the centrist organization that is vying to gain ballot access for the 2024 presidential election, has joined forces with Javier Palomarez, an advocate of Hispanic-owned businesses with a history of allegations of workplace financial misconduct and sexual harassment.In 2018, Mr. Palomarez stepped down from his job as chief executive of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce while facing accusations that he had padded his pay and had made an unwanted pass at his female chief of staff. He denied those allegations and later sued the chamber. He also sued one of the group’s former directors, saying that he had been sexually harassed. Both matters were ultimately settled out of court in 2019.In an interview on Tuesday evening, Mr. Palomarez said his departure from the Hispanic Chamber was a result of a witch hunt against him because he elected to work with instead of against the Trump administration. He said he “won the lawsuits” against his accusers, though he said the terms of the settlements remained confidential. He declined to reveal them. “All I can do is tell you I maintained my innocence then and I maintain it now,” he said.Mr. Palomarez is a self-described Democrat who resigned from a diversity coalition convened by the Trump administration over its efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. He appears on cable news occasionally to criticize President Biden on issues like immigration and domestic energy production. He is also the founder and chief executive of an advocacy organization with a mission similar to that of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, his former employer, and is now a volunteer leader at No Labels.During a video meeting with No Labels followers on Tuesday evening, Mr. Palomarez spoke of the importance of engaging Hispanic voters as part of any presidential ticket.“Our nation is at a transit point. Never before have we been so disillusioned by our elected officials and our leaders,” he said to the roughly 300 participants on the call. “One thing is clear: The Hispanic electorate will play a decisive role in the elections of 2024.”Mr. Palomarez, who voted for Mr. Biden in 2020, said his role at No Labels would be as a conduit to the Hispanic community, which he said had been harmed by the Biden administration’s energy policies.Feedback from No Labels supporters, he said, is that it would be better to replace Mr. Biden with a Republican.“There’s a sense that this White House has lost touch,” he said. “From an economic perspective, a Republican would be better suited to run the country.”But before the meeting with Mr. Palomarez, some invitees were privately fuming about his involvement.“It was alarming to see his role in a big organization like No Labels, though clearly, No Labels lacks a lot of credibility when it comes to national politics,” said Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist who was on the board of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce when Mr. Palomarez came under fire. “I hope he has changed.”Nancy Jacobson, the No Labels chief executive, said Tuesday that she wasn’t aware of the 2018 allegations against Mr. Palomarez.No Labels, which is exploring the possibility of running a so-called presidential unity ticket that could include both a Republican and a Democrat, has qualified for the presidential ballot in 12 states. But its effort has stalled in others — a result of rules in some states that require new third-party organizations to have a candidate to secure ballot access.Mr. Biden’s allies view No Labels as an existential threat because of the competition it could create for both votes and dollars. As a result, Democrats have broadly shunned No Labels, a result in part of a campaign from the group Third Way to keep top party members and donors from participating with the organization.They may have reason for concern. On the call Tuesday, Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster, said a survey he recently conducted for the Spanish-language news network Univision showed that the independent presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West were pulling more support from Mr. Biden than they were from former President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Newhouse showed a slide that had Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump tied in a two-way race, but Mr. Trump ahead in a race with several other candidates on the ballot.Ms. Jacobson has in recent weeks told potential donors that the group will name a Republican to lead its presidential ticket at a planned convention in April. In 2021, three years after departing the commerce organization, Mr. Palomarez founded the United States Hispanic Business Council, whose stated mission is to “empower Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States by advocating for people and policies that support their advancement.” Ms. Jacobson said that Mr. Palomarez was recommended highly to No Labels.“Several people referred him to our organization as an extremely competent leader who could add value and perspective as a volunteer,” she said. Ms Jacobson said Mr. Palomarez would not be paid. She added that he would be working with the No Labels co-chairs but did not say what his responsibilities would be. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Will Pick Up Endorsement by Bob Vander Plaats of Iowa

      by

      The endorsement by Bob Vander Plaats was long expected, but comes as Gov. Ron DeSantis has tried to build momentum heading into the Iowa caucuses in January.The influential Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats endorsed Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday, the second major endorsement Mr. DeSantis has picked up this month in the state.Kim Reynolds, Iowa’s popular Republican governor, announced her support two weeks ago, giving Mr. DeSantis a key surrogate in a state that will hold the first vote of the Republican primary season with its caucuses on Jan. 15.“We need to find somebody who can win in 2024,” Mr. Vander Plaats said on Tuesday on “Special Report With Bret Baier” on Fox News. “What we saw in 2022, the supposedly red wave really only happened in Florida and in Iowa. Governor DeSantis took a reliable tossup state in Florida and made it complete red.”Mr. Vander Plaats has endorsed the last three Republicans who won contested Iowa caucuses — Mike Huckabee in 2008, Rick Santorum in 2012 and Ted Cruz in 2016 — though none of them went on to win the nomination. But it is far from clear that his support will be enough to bolster Mr. DeSantis, who is trailing former President Donald J. Trump by huge margins in polls in Iowa as well as nationally.As of Tuesday, Mr. DeSantis was more than 25 points behind Mr. Trump in the FiveThirtyEight average of Iowa surveys — an enormous gap to make up in less than two months’ time. And he is barely holding on to second place over Nikki Haley.Mr. Vander Plaats did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.Mr. Vander Plaats is well known for his influence among evangelicals, who are a powerful voting bloc in Iowa and have lifted socially conservative candidates there before.He is also a divisive figure. His organization once encouraged Republican candidates to sign a pledge that included a lament that “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.”The Democratic National Committee highlighted a recent report about that pledge on Friday, as several Republican candidates prepared to appear at an event with Mr. Vander Plaats.On Tuesday, a D.N.C. spokeswoman, Sarafina Chitika, said: “Vander Plaats’ endorsement should come as no surprise — both he and DeSantis share the same desire to ban abortion and rip away freedoms from millions of women. They both promoted the insulting idea that slavery somehow benefited Black families.”At the recent event, a gala on Saturday for the anti-abortion group Pulse Life Advocates, Mr. Vander Plaats said that opposition to abortion was the single most important factor in his support for a candidate.“If they are not crystal clear where they are at on the sanctity of human life, you can’t trust them on anything else,” Mr. Vander Plaats said, adding: “The sanctity of life is not something to be nuanced. It’s not something to be poll-tested. It’s not a thing where the heartbeat bill was too harsh of a thing to be passed at the state level for the state of Florida.”That comment about the “heartbeat” bill, a common conservative name for six-week abortion bans, was a clear criticism of Mr. Trump, though Mr. Vander Plaats did not name him. Mr. Trump has called the six-week ban that Mr. DeSantis signed in Florida “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”Mr. Trump is, more than any other Republican, responsible for the Dobbs ruling that ended Roe v. Wade and allowed such laws to take effect, as he appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who made the ruling.Mr. Trump has not courted Mr. Vander Plaats, and the former president’s supporters have been dismissive about his endorsement’s significance. A statement from the Trump campaign on Tuesday said, “While the DeSantis camp will try and spin that a Vander Plaats endorsement will revive their sputtering and shrinking campaign, cold hard data tells a much different story. These G.O.P. caucus attenders have mixed feelings about Vander Plaats, if they have any opinion at all, and no few if any are moving to vote for DeSantis because of his endorsement.”Shane Goldmacher More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Judge Rules Undated Mail-In Ballots in Pennsylvania Must Be Counted

      by

      The judge said that a state law requiring voters to date the return envelope violated the voting protections of the Civil Rights Act.A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled on Monday that mail-in ballots that are received on time but are undated should be counted, arguing that a state law rejecting such votes violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The ruling was an opening victory for voting rights groups in a case with national implications heading into the 2024 election, as Republicans and conservative advocacy groups continue to push for stricter voting laws.“We applaud today’s court decision,” said Susan Gobreski, a vice president of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, which is a plaintiff in the case. She added: “Pennsylvania citizens must have complete and unfettered access to the ballot box, free from unnecessary obstacles or interference.”The ruling is likely to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, where the court’s most conservative members have previously supported the state law that requires voters to write the date on the return envelope when sending in their ballots.The Republican National Committee, a defendant in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.In a 77-page opinion, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania said that the law violated the voting protections of the Civil Rights Act because the requirement that voters date their ballots was not “material to the act of voting.”“The provision protects a citizen’s right to vote by forbidding a state actor from disqualifying a voter because of their failure to provide or error in providing some unnecessary information on a voting application or ballot,” Judge Baxter wrote in her opinion, adding that “the ballots of the individual plaintiffs should be counted because their statutory rights have been violated.”Judge Baxter was first nominated for her position by President Barack Obama and was ultimately appointed by President Donald J. Trump.A protracted legal battle has raged over the validity of undated mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered state officials a week before the 2022 election to refrain from counting ballots that were undated, after the Republican National Committee and other party-aligned groups sued to block those votes from being counted.The N.A.A.C.P. and several other voting rights groups then sued to reverse the order, arguing that failing to count votes because of a missing or incorrect date would potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters. More