Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What Frederick Douglass Knew That Trump and DeSantis Don’t

      by

      There was a moment during the Trump administration when the president and his most ideologically committed advisers searched for a way to end birthright citizenship.Enshrined in the first sentence of the first section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, birthright citizenship means that anyone and everyone born on American soil is an American citizen. Written to secure the social transformations wrought by the Civil War, it is a cornerstone of the United States as a multiracial democracy.President Donald Trump would end it, he decided, by executive order. “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” he said when announcing the effort in 2018, falsely asserting, “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States — with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”Fortunately, Trump was wrong. There is no way, short of a constitutional amendment, to nullify the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Nor was there any question of its meaning and intent. After fierce pushback from legal scholars on both the left and the right, Trump dropped the issue.But he didn’t forget about it. Earlier this year, Trump announced that if he were elected president again, he would ban birthright citizenship through executive order. Not to be outdone in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, said that he, too, would end birthright citizenship if elected president.“Stop the invasion,” said DeSantis’s blueprint for immigration policy. “No excuses.” He is pledging to “take action to end the idea that the children of illegal aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship if they are born in the United States.” He also contends, “Dangling the prize of citizenship to the future offspring of illegal immigrants is a major driver of illegal migration,” adding that “it is also inconsistent with the original understanding of the 14th Amendment.”The main reason DeSantis has followed Trump down this path is that he appears to be running to be the understudy to the former president. If Trump is forced out of the race because his legal troubles push him out of presidential politics, then DeSantis will take the standard for the MAGA faithful. Or so he hopes.At the same time, it’s clear that DeSantis’s position is as much about ideology as it is about opportunism. His attack on birthright citizenship is consistent with his crusade to purge “wokeness” from schools and classrooms in the state of Florida, where officials have banned books and suppressed instruction on, among other subjects, the history of American racism.The attack on birthright citizenship is an attempt to stigmatize and remove from society an entire class of people. And the attack on so-called wokeness is an attempt to delegitimize and remove from society an entire way of understanding the world. Together, the attacks form an assault on two of the pillars of the egalitarian ideal.Here, it is worth taking a brief tour of the history of birthright citizenship in the United States. Before the 14th Amendment, the boundaries around citizenship were ill defined. Although the idea of birthright citizenship was present in English common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the Constitution as ratified said nothing about acquiring citizenship by either birth or naturalization.In 1790, Congress limited citizenship by naturalization to “free White persons … of good character,” but was silent on the question of citizenship by birth. As the 18th century came to a close and the 19th century progressed, one prominent view was that there was no citizenship in the United States as such; there was only citizenship in a state, which conferred national citizenship by virtue of the state’s place in the Union. To the extent that citizenship came with rights, the scope of those rights was a question of state laws and state constitutions.But there were always proponents of a broader, more expansive and rights-bearing birthright citizenship. They were free Black Americans, who needed to anchor themselves in a world where their freedom was tenuous and uncertain.“We are Americans, having a birthright citizenship,” wrote Martin Delany, the free Black journalist and antislavery orator, in his 1852 pamphlet “The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States.” Delany, as the historian Martha S. Jones noted in “Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America,” called on Black Americans to leave the United States. And yet, he still claimed the country as his own.“Our common country is the United States,” Delany wrote. “Here were we born, here raised and educated; here are the scenes of childhood; the pleasant associations of our school going days; the loved enjoyments of our domestic and fireside relations, and the sacred graves of our departed fathers and mothers, and from here will we not be driven by any policy that may be schemed against us.”Against legislative efforts to make their lives in America impossible to live, free Blacks asserted that, in Delany’s words, “the rights of the colored man in this country to citizenship are fixed,” attached not just to the states, but to the United States.Jones noted that even those opposed to emigration, like the men of the 1853 Colored National Convention in Rochester, N.Y., mirrored Delany’s thinking. “We are Americans, and as Americans, we would speak to Americans,” declared the group. “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles, humbly asking to be permitted to dwell among you in peace; but we address you as American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.”With his 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, however, Chief Justice Roger Taney foreclosed the constitutional recognition of Black citizenship and defined the United States, in true Jacksonian form, as a white man’s country. Black people, he wrote, “were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” They had no rights, he added, “which the white man was bound to respect.”The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, based on similar language found in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, was a direct response to and a rebuke of Taney’s reasoning. Having won the argument on the battlefield, the United States would amend its Constitution to establish an inclusive and, in theory, egalitarian national citizenship.The authors of the 14th Amendment knew exactly what they were doing. In a country that had already seen successive waves of mass immigration, they knew that birthright citizenship would extend beyond Black and white Americans to people of other hues and backgrounds. That was the point.Asked by an opponent if the clause would “have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country,” Senator Lyman Trumbull, who helped draft the language of birthright citizenship in the Civil Rights Act, replied “Undoubtedly.” Senator John Conness of California said outright that he was “ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”In 1867, around the time Congress was debating and formulating the 14th Amendment, Frederick Douglass delivered a speech in Boston where he outlined his vision of a “composite nationality,” an America that stood as a beacon for all peoples, built on the foundation of an egalitarian republic. “I want a home here not only for the Negro, the mulatto and the Latin races; but I want the Asiatic to find a home here in the United States, and feel at home here, both for his sake and for ours,” Douglass said. “The outspread wings of the American Eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come.”If birthright citizenship is the constitutional provision that makes a multiracial democracy of equals possible, then it is no wonder that it now lies in the cross hairs of men who lead a movement devoted to unraveling that particular vision of the American republic.Embedded in birthright citizenship, in other words, is the potential for a freer, more equal America. For Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, that appears to be the problem.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

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Coalition of the Distrustful

      by

      Before Covid, Gabe Whitney, a 41-year-old from West Bath, Maine, didn’t think much about vaccines. He wasn’t very political — he didn’t vote in 2020, he said, because he thought Donald Trump was a “psycho” and Joe Biden was “corrupt.” It wasn’t until the pandemic that Whitney started regularly watching the news, but as he did, he felt like things weren’t adding up. He doubted what he called “the narrative” and struggled with the hostility his questions about vaccines and other mitigations elicited from those close to him. He described being “blamed and labeled as someone who’s part of the problem because you’re questioning. Like not taking a stance on it, but just questioning. That was the worst.”Whitney started gravitating toward people who see skepticism of mainstream public health directives as a sign of courage rather than selfishness and delusion. He began following anti-vax figures like Del Bigtree, Robert Malone and, of course, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Whitney already admired for his environmental work. Kennedy has long touted an illusory connection between vaccines and autism, and has repeatedly said that pandemic restrictions arose from a C.I.A. plan to “clamp down totalitarian control.” If Kennedy was so wrong, Whitney thought, it didn’t make sense that his critics wouldn’t debate him. “When someone is taking such an unpopular position, and then nobody wants to debate them, that says something to me,” he said.I met Whitney this month at a rally for Kennedy, now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, at Saint Anselm College, just outside Manchester, N.H. I’d gone because I was curious about who was turning out to see the candidate. Among many Democrats, there’s an assumption that Kennedy’s surprising strength in some polls — an Emerson College survey from April showed him getting 21 percent in a Democratic primary — is mostly attributable to the magic of his name and anxiety about Joe Biden’s age. This is probably at least partly true. As media coverage has made Democrats more aware of Kennedy’s conspiratorial views, his support has fallen; a recent Saint Anselm poll had him at only 9 percent, barely ahead of Marianne Williamson.At the same time, Kennedy has a sincere and passionate following. When I arrived at the St. Anselm venue, I was surprised by the enormous line snaking out the door. It quickly became clear that many people weren’t going to make it into the 580-seat auditorium. (I requested an interview with Kennedy, but never heard back from the person I was told could schedule it.)In New Hampshire, I didn’t meet any loyal Democrats who were there just to scope out the alternatives. The 2020 Biden voters I encountered were dead set against voting for him again; some, disenchanted by vaccine mandates and American support for Ukraine, even said they preferred Donald Trump. Like Whitney, several people I spoke to hadn’t voted at all in 2020 because they didn’t like their choices. Some attendees said they leaned right, and others identified with the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.What brought them all together was a peculiar combination of cynicism and credulity. The people I encountered believe that they are living under a deeply sinister regime that lies to them about almost everything that matters. And they believe that with the Kennedy campaign, we might be on the cusp of redemption.In 2021, Charles Eisenstein, an influential New Age writer, described the assassination of John F. Kennedy as the primal wound that brought America to its current lamentable state. “It is like a radioactive pellet lodged inside the body politic,” he wrote, “generating an endlessly metastasizing cancer that no one has been able to trace to its source.”Eisenstein takes it for granted that J.F.K.’s murder was orchestrated by the national security state, a view also held by R.F.K. Jr., the former president’s nephew. Because the official story “beggars belief,” Eisenstein argued, it engendered in the populace a festering distrust of all official narratives. At the same time, the cover-up led the government to regard the people it’s been continually deceiving with contempt, as “unruly schoolchildren who must be managed, surveilled, tracked, locked up and locked down for their own good.”A Kennedy restoration, Eisenstein believes, would heal the corrosive injury that separates the people from their putative leaders, putting America back on the confident and optimistic trajectory from which it was diverted in 1963. In May, he joined Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign as a senior adviser working on messaging and strategy.“There was a timeline in which America was, however flawed, it was moving towards greater and greater virtue,” Eisenstein said in a podcast he and Kennedy recorded together. J.F.K.’s assassination jolted America onto a different, darker timeline, but perhaps not permanently. “I feel like maybe that timeline hasn’t died,” Eisenstein said of the earlier era. “Maybe we can pick up that thread. And it’s so significant that a Kennedy just so happens to be in a position to do that. It’s one of the synchronicities that speak to, or speak from, a larger organizing intelligence in the world.”To those of us who see Kennedy as an anti-vax conspiracy theorist, his campaign looks like either a farce or a dirty trick, one boosted by MAGA figures like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon to weaken Joe Biden ahead of the 2024 election. But to many in his substantial following, it has a messianic cast, promising deliverance from the division and confusion that began with J.F.K.’s assassination and reached a terrifying apotheosis during the Covid pandemic. “We are in the last battle,” Kennedy said in a 2021 speech at a California church famous for defying pandemic restrictions. “This is the apocalypse. We are fighting for the salvation of all humanity.”In Kennedy’s campaign, this chiliastic vision is translated into a story about the renewal of a lost American golden age, before the murders of his uncle and then his father, Robert F. Kennedy. In New Hampshire, his appearance was more than just a campaign stop — it commemorated the 60th anniversary of J.F.K.’s famous “Peace Speech” at American University, where the young president had called on his countrymen “not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.”Standing before a row of American flags in that packed Saint Anselm auditorium, wearing a suit and a 1960s-style skinny tie, Kennedy reworked his uncle’s speech as a call to empathize with Vladimir Putin’s perspective on Ukraine. He cast American support for Volodymyr Zelensky’s government as a continuation of our country’s forever wars, which he posited as the cause of American decline. As he often does, he mixed highly tendentious arguments — attributing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in part to “repeated deliberate provocations” by America — with resonant truths. “Waging endless wars abroad, we have neglected the foundation of our own well-being,” he said. “We have a decaying economic infrastructure, we have a demoralized people and despairing people. We have toxins in our air and our soil and our water. We have deteriorating mental and physical health.”A new Kennedy presidency, he claimed, could revive us. “We can restore America to the awesome vitality of the original Kennedy era,” he said. It was a softer, more eloquent version of Make America Great Again, and the audience loved it.When the speech was over, the crowd was invited to join one of three breakout sessions. I chose “Peace Consciousness in Foreign Policy,” a dialogue led by Eisenstein. “You could say manifest, or you can say prophesize, but we need to see that this is possible,” a woman at the talk said about the prospect of a Kennedy presidency. “We all need to hold that view and magnetize it.” The people around her hooted and applauded.It is in fact possible that Kennedy will win the primary in New Hampshire, because, as a result of a dispute over the Democratic National Committee’s changes to the primary calendar, Biden might not be on the ballot. That doesn’t mean Kennedy poses an electoral threat to Biden; he almost certainly does not. Still, the movement around him represents a significant post-Covid social phenomenon: a coalition of the distrustful that cuts across divisions of right and left.It’s also both a show of strength and a potential recruiting vehicle for what Derek Beres, Matthew Remski and Julian Walker call “conspirituality,” the intermarriage of conspiracy theorism and wellness culture that flowered during the pandemic. In their new book, “Conspirituality: How New Age Conspiracy Theories Became a Health Threat,” they show how crunchy yoga influencers were pulled into the paranoid orbit of QAnon. Conspiritualists warned that “the pandemic was a ruse through which governments, Big Pharma and amoral tech companies could execute ancient plans for world domination,” they wrote. “The sacred circle of family and nature — from which health and fulfillment flow — was under attack.”In their book, the writers describe Kennedy’s adviser Eisenstein as “a kind of Covid mystic for conspirituality intellectuals.” Eisenstein’s viral 9,000-word essay “The Coronation,” published in March 2020, was a key document among Covid skeptics and dissidents, championed by the formerly leftist actor Russell Brand, quoted by Ivanka Trump and tweeted by Jack Dorsey, a co-founder of Twitter, who recently endorsed Kennedy.“There’s a huge political realignment going on in this country, where a lot of the old categories — liberal, conservative — just don’t make sense anymore,” Eisenstein told me after the New Hampshire event. The Kennedy campaign, he said, “is unifying people who have really lost trust in the system, lost trust in politicians, lost trust — no offense intended — in the media.”A few days after the speech, I met Aubrey Marcus, who co-founded a multimillion-dollar nutritional supplement company, Onnit, with the podcaster Joe Rogan, at the cafe in the Soho Grand Hotel. Marcus, a self-help guru, author, podcaster and ayahuasca promoter based in Austin, Texas, who recently led the football star Aaron Rodgers on a darkness retreat in Oregon, is an ardent Kennedy backer, though he’s never voted in his life. “This is as strong a belief in a cause as I’ve ever had,” he said. Many people he knows, he told me, share his enthusiasm: There’s “more excitement than I’ve ever seen about any politician, ever.”That excitement is only intensified by a sense that the establishment is trying to silence Kennedy, who during the pandemic was booted from major social media platforms for promoting untruths about vaccines. Marcus denounced “the broad application of censorship for very complicated issues” and attempts to “remove people from the conversation and saying they don’t deserve a voice.”The celebration of Kennedy as a free-speech icon creates a dilemma for those who think that by discouraging lifesaving vaccinations, he’s going to get people killed. This month, after Peter Hotez, a well-known vaccine scientist, criticized Joe Rogan for letting Kennedy spread vaccine misinformation on his podcast, Rogan offered to donate $100,000 to the charity of Hotez’s choice if he’d debate Kennedy on his show. A billionaire hedge fund manager, Bill Ackman, offered an additional $150,000, and one Covid contrarian after another chimed in to add to the pot. “He’s afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong,” Elon Musk tweeted. As the pile-on mounted, anti-vaccine activists showed up at Hotez’s house, harassing him for his refusal to square off against Kennedy.Hotez, whose book “Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism” was inspired by his autistic daughter, has actually spoken to Kennedy several times in the past in an effort to convince him that he’s wrong about vaccines. It was, Hotez told me, frustrating and fruitless. “You’d debunk one thing and then he’d come up with something else,” he said. Hotez has been a guest on Rogan’s podcast before and is more than willing to return, but said, “Having Bobby there will just turn it into ‘The Jerry Springer Show.’”I sympathize with Hotez’s position, which is the same one taken by experts in many fields when challenged to debate cranks. Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, refuses to debate creationists because he doesn’t want to treat them as legitimate interlocutors. Deborah Lipstadt, a Holocaust historian and diplomat, has written that trying to debate Holocaust deniers is like “trying to nail a blob of jelly to the wall. It’s impossible because no matter what you say to them, they’re going to make something up.” To debate a conspiracy theorist, one must be fluent not just in facts but also in a near-limitless arsenal of non-facts.Still, it’s obvious enough why Kennedy’s sympathizers view it as a moral victory when experts refuse to engage with him. To successfully quarantine certain ideas, you need some sort of social consensus about what is and isn’t beyond the pale. In America, that consensus has broken down. Liberals, justifiably panicked by epistemological chaos, have sometimes tried to reassert consensus by treating more and more subjects — like the lab-leak theory of Covid’s origin — as unworthy of public argument. But the proliferation of taboos can give stigmatized ideas the sheen of secret knowledge. When the boundaries of acceptable discourse are policed too stringently — and with too much unearned certainty — that can be a recipe for red pills.A Kennedy presidency, some of the candidate’s supporters hope, will knock those boundaries down. One of those supporters is my old boss David Talbot, a co-founder of the online magazine Salon.com. “Bobby talks about the censorship culture coming out of the left,” Talbot told me when we talked recently. “I think that’s a dangerous trend. On the left, liberals used to be against censorship. We’re now shutting down free speech.”This is, no doubt, a lament you’ve heard before, and maybe one you agree with. A common theme among old-school liberals disenchanted with contemporary progressivism is that it’s sanctimonious and intolerant. But talking to Kennedy fans, I heard something more than just complaints about cancel culture. I heard an almost spiritual belief that Kennedy, by being brave enough to speak some unspeakable truth, could heal the hatred and suspicions that make Americans want to shut one another down.For Talbot, a longtime friend of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the author of “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years,” that truth is that the American government killed both J.F.K. and R.F.K., along with Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Talbot compared the former president’s assassination to the body in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart.” “It’s the tragic event underneath the floorboards, a corpse that’s stinking up our house of democracy,” he said. Being honest about it, he believes, “would be the beginning of a truth and reconciliation process that I think this country desperately needs. Any public figure who’s willing to say what should be said, to wipe the slate clean and get at this kind of truth about who really runs this country, about who benefits, is to be applauded, not to be smeared.”This notion of wiping the slate clean — or Eisenstein’s idea about returning to an aborted timeline — is a powerful one. Who wouldn’t want to reach into the past and undo the errors and accidents that have brought us to this miserable moment? As politics it’s a harmful fantasy; movements that promise to restore a halcyon era of national unity always are. As a quasi-religious impulse — or as the drive of a candidate seeking to return to a time before his uncle and father were murdered — it’s perhaps more understandable. “A lot of people fall into despair when they take in the hopelessness of our situation,” Eisenstein said on Marcus’s podcast last week. “And it is in fact hopeless if you don’t incorporate what we’re calling miracles.”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

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Isn’t Getting the Credit for the Economy He Deserves

      by

      The misery index is a crude but effective way to measure the health of the economy. You add up the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. If you’re a president running for re-election, you want that number to be as low as possible.When Ronald Reagan won re-election, it was about 11.4, when George W. Bush did so it was 9, for Barack Obama it was 9.5, and today, as Joe Biden runs for re-election, it’s only 7.7.Biden should be cruising to an easy re-election victory. And that misery index number doesn’t even begin to capture the strength of the American economy at the moment. There are a zillion positive indicators right now, as the folks in the administration will be quick to tell you. The economy has created 13 million jobs since Biden’s Inauguration Day. According to the Conference Board, a business research firm, Americans’ job satisfaction is at its highest level in 36 years. Household net worth is surging.We learned Thursday that the U.S. economy grew at an annualized 2 percent rate in the first quarter of this year, well above the economists’ expectations of around 1.4 percent. The best part of it is that the new prosperity is helping those who have long been left behind. In the four years of Donald Trump’s administration, spending on manufacturing facilities grew by 5 percent. During the first two years of Biden’s administration, such investment more than doubled and about 800,000 manufacturing jobs were created.This is not just coincidence. It’s a direct outcome of Biden policies: the Inflation Reduction Act, with its green technology provisions, the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act.Biden’s stimulative spending did boost the inflation rate, but inflation is now lower than in many other developed nations and our economy is stronger.So Americans should be celebrating. But they are not. According to an NBC News survey conducted this month, at least 74 percent of Americans say the country is on the wrong track. The Gallup economic confidence index over the past year has been starkly negative; people haven’t felt this bad about the economy since the throes of the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. The University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index is also tremendously downbeat. Joe Biden’s approval numbers have been stuck around a perilously low 43 percent for a year.As the maestro political analyst Charlie Cook noted in 2020, on average, presidents tend to lose their re-election bids when about 70 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and they tend to win when fewer than half of Americans think that.Why are Americans feeling so bad about an economy that’s so good? Partly, it’s inflation. Things have stabilized recently as inflation has dropped, but for a while there, real wages really were falling. Prices on things like gas and food are now significantly higher than they were three years ago.The Biden folks are hoping that as inflation continues to decline and as they get the word out, Americans will begin to feel better about things. But it’s not that simple.Part of it is the media. A recent study found that over the past couple of decades headlines have grown starkly more negative, conveying anger and fear. That’s bound to spread bad vibes through the populace.But the main problem is national psychology. Americans’ satisfaction with their personal lives is nearly four times as high as their satisfaction with the state of the nation. That’s likely because during the Trump era we have suffered a collective moral injury, a collective loss of confidence, a loss of faith in ourselves as a nation.America has suffered two recent periods of national demoralization. In the 1970s, during Vietnam and Watergate, Americans lost faith in their institutions. During the Trump era, Americans also lost faith in one another. Those who supported Trump were converted to the gospel of American Carnage, the idea that elite Americans seek to destroy other Americans, that we are on the precipice of disaster. Those who opposed Trump were appalled that their countrymen could support him, disgusted by his rampant immorality, alarmed that their democracy was suddenly in peril.The anthropologist Raoul Naroll argued that every society has a “moral net,” a cultural infrastructure that exists, mostly unconsciously, in the minds of its members. America’s is in tatters. This manifests a loss of national self-esteem. People begin to assume national incompetence. Fearful and anxiety-ridden people are quick to perceive the negative aspects of any situation, hypersensitive to threat, prone to pessimism.You can’t argue people out of that psychological and moral state with statistics and fact sheets. Biden is going to have to serve as a national guide, not just an administrator. He has to get outside the protective walls that have been built around him and make himself the center of the nation’s attention, not Trump. He’ll have to come up with a 21st-century national story that gives people a sense of coherence and belonging — that we are marching in a clear direction toward some concrete set of goals.Good jobs numbers alone don’t heal a brutalized national psyche, and that’s our main problem right now.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

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Pence Meets With Zelensky in Ukraine, Highlighting G.O.P. Split Over War

      by

      Former Vice President Mike Pence made an unannounced visit to Ukraine on Thursday, a detour from the presidential campaign trail that was intended to highlight his unwavering support for the nation as it battles Russia and to contrast it with the views of two key Republican rivals: Donald J. Trump and Ron DeSantis.Both Mr. Trump, the former president, and Mr. DeSantis, the Florida governor, have criticized U.S. involvement in the defense of Ukraine. The United States has provided more than $40 billion in military and humanitarian aid.During his 12-hour stay, with an NBC News crew accompanying him, Mr. Pence met with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and toured a mass burial site, placing flowers at a memorial, according to an adviser.For more than 16 months, Ukraine has been fighting to repel the Russian invasion, in a war that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers.“Look, the war here in Ukraine is not our war, but freedom is our fight,” Mr. Pence told NBC News. He is the first Republican candidate to visit Ukraine during the 2024 campaign. President Biden was in Kyiv in February.In his nightly address to his nation, Mr. Zelensky thanked Mr. Pence for his support and said that American support for Ukraine was vital.Mr. Pence added to NBC News, “I think we’re advancing not only the interests of freedom, but let me be clear, my other message is we’re advancing our national interest.”The show of solidarity by Mr. Pence, who was Mr. Trump’s vice president, contrasted sharply with the G.O.P.’s top tier of presidential candidates.During a CNN town hall in May, Mr. Trump, the Republican front-runner, refused to say whether he wanted Ukraine to win the war.He also would not call President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a war criminal, saying that doing so would make it more difficult to end the hostilities. Mr. Trump did say Mr. Putin had “made a bad mistake” by invading Ukraine.Mr. DeSantis, a former House member, has aligned himself more closely with Mr. Trump on U.S. aid for Ukraine.In a statement to Fox News in March before formally entering the race, Mr. DeSantis said that protecting Ukraine’s borders was not a vital U.S. interest and that policymakers should instead focus attention at home. He was responding to a questionnaire from Tucker Carlson, the conservative commentator who was later fired by the network.At that time, Mr. DeSantis was criticized by some hawks in the G.O.P. for describing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a “territorial dispute.” In an attempt to clarify his remarks, he later called Mr. Putin a “war criminal” who should be “held accountable.”Jonathan Swan More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Investigation of Trump Documents Case Continues After His Indictment

      by

      A grand jury has issued more subpoenas to people involved in the case after the unveiling of a 38-count indictment this month against the former president and an aide.Three weeks after former President Donald J. Trump was indicted on charges of illegally retaining national security records and obstructing the government’s efforts to reclaim them, a federal grand jury in Miami is still investigating aspects of the case, according to people familiar with the matter.In recent days, the grand jury has issued subpoenas to a handful of people who are connected to the inquiry, those familiar with it said. While it remains unclear who received the subpoenas and the kind of information prosecutors were seeking to obtain, it is clear that the grand jury has stayed active and that investigators are digging even after a 38-count indictment was issued this month against Mr. Trump and a co-defendant, Walt Nauta, one of his personal aides.Prosecutors often continue investigating strands of a criminal case after charges have been brought, and sometimes their efforts go nowhere. But post-indictment investigations can result in additional charges against people who have already been accused of crimes in the case. The investigations can also be used to bring charges against new defendants.When the office of the special counsel Jack Smith filed the charges against Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta in the Southern District of Florida, the 49-page indictment offered an unusually detailed picture of the former president holding on to 31 highly sensitive government documents at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in West Palm Beach, Fla. Among the documents were some that concerned U.S. nuclear programs and others that detailed the nation’s potential vulnerabilities to attack.The indictment was strewn with vivid photographs of government records stored in boxes throughout Mar-a-Lago in a haphazard manner. Some of the boxes were piled up in a storage room, others in a bathroom and on a ballroom stage.Several of Mr. Trump’s aides and advisers appeared in the indictment, identified only as Trump Employee 1 or similar descriptions. In one episode, the indictment recounted how Mr. Trump displayed a classified map to someone described as “a representative of his political action committee” during a meeting in August or September 2021 at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.The representative of the PAC was Susie Wiles, one of the top advisers for Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, according to two people briefed on the matter. A Trump spokesman declined to comment.Ms. Wiles’s appearance in the indictment was reported earlier by ABC News.The fact that Ms. Wiles could become a prosecution witness should Mr. Trump’s case go to trial, even as she is helping run his third bid for office, underscores the complexities that the former president now faces as he deals with both a presidential campaign and a criminal defense with an overlapping cast of characters.During the meeting with Ms. Wiles, the indictment says, Mr. Trump commented that “an ongoing military operation” in an unnamed country was not going well. He then showed Ms. Wiles, who did not have proper security clearance, a classified map of that country, the indictment says, even while acknowledging that he should not be displaying the map and warning Ms. Wiles “to not get too close.”Many of Mr. Trump’s aides and employees at Mar-a-Lago were questioned as part of the investigation that resulted in his indictment, and Mr. Trump has been barred from discussing the facts of the case with them even though many work in close contact with him. Mr. Trump has made defending himself against the charges a central part of his political and fund-raising messages, adding to the level of overlap that exists between his legal and political worlds.Other aides who have been close to Mr. Trump are featured in the indictment, such as “Trump Employee 2,” who has been identified as Molly Michael, an assistant to Mr. Trump in the White House and his post-presidential office. The portion of the indictment describing the transcript of an audio recording in which Mr. Trump described what he said was a plan to attack Iran given to him by the Pentagon lists someone as a “staffer,” whom three people identified as Liz Harrington, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump.Some Trump aides and employees who had initially caught the attention of investigators were mentioned in the indictment only in passing.At one point, for example, prosecutors under Mr. Smith appeared to be focused on Mr. Nauta’s dealings with a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago, Carlos Deoliveira, who helped him move boxes into a storage room at the compound. The movement of those boxes — at Mr. Trump’s request, prosecutors say — ultimately lay at the heart of a conspiracy charge in the indictment accusing Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta of obstructing the government’s attempt to retrieve all of the classified materials in Mr. Trump’s possession.In a previously unreported detail, prosecutors obtained a warrant to seize Mr. Deoliveira’s phone as part of their investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter.Records from the phone eventually showed that Mr. Deoliveira called an I.T. specialist who worked for Mar-a-Lago last summer around the time that prosecutors issued a subpoena to Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, demanding footage from a surveillance camera near the storage room where the boxes of documents were kept.But Mr. Deoliveira is referenced as “an employee of the Mar-a-Lago Club” in only a single paragraph in the indictment. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Presidential Candidates Hail the Affirmative Action Decision

      by

      The Republicans running for president applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday to strike down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, a policy that for decades has stoked the conservative agenda.Former President Donald J. Trump called the decision a “great day for America” in a statement.“People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded,” he said, adding, “We’re going back to all merit-based — and that’s the way it should be!”Mr. Trump’s political organization, the MAGA War Room, cast him as a main catalyst for the court’s ruling to end affirmative action, saying on Twitter that “he delivered on his promise to appoint constitutional justices.”It also made an outlandish comparison between Mr. Trump, the Republican front-runner who has been indicted twice since leaving the White House, and Abraham Lincoln, one of the party’s iconic forebears.“President Trump will end affirmative action like Lincoln ended slavery,” the group wrote on Twitter.Mr. Trump appointed three of the six justices who voted to reject affirmative action at colleges, the same conservative supermajority that delivered another seismic victory for conservatives a year ago when it overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion.Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s former vice president, who is now a 2024 rival, suggested in a statement on Thursday that he deserved a measure of credit for the court’s rightward shift and said that the “egregious” policy had “only served to perpetuate racism.”“I am honored to have played a role in appointing three of the justices that ensured today’s welcomed decision, and as president I will continue to appoint judges who will strictly apply the law rather than twisting it to serve woke and progressive ends,” he said.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, Mr. Trump’s chief G.O.P. rival, also welcomed the court’s move.“College admissions should be based on merit and applicants should not be judged on their race or ethnicity,” he wrote on Twitter. “The Supreme Court has correctly upheld the Constitution and ended discrimination by colleges and universities.”Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is Black, said in a statement that race should not determine who gets certain opportunities.“We will not be judged solely by the color of our skin,” he said. “That’s what the ruling said today. But that is the story of America. That is a story of American progress, and we can all celebrate that today.”Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and onetime United Nations ambassador under Mr. Trump, said in a statement that the court’s ruling had reaffirmed how Americans value freedom and opportunity.“Picking winners and losers based on race is fundamentally wrong,” Ms. Haley said. “This decision will help every student — no matter their background — have a better opportunity to achieve the American Dream.”Vivek Ramaswamy, a multimillionaire entrepreneur who graduated from Harvard College, which was a defendant in the Supreme Court case, pledged to take further steps to end affirmative action. In a statement, he said would repeal a decades-old presidential executive order that requires federal contractors to adopt race-based hiring preferences.“I’m glad the U.S. Supreme Court finally laid to rest one of the worst failed experiments in American history: affirmative action,” he said. “Still, the ruling is likely to mark the beginning of a new era of ‘shadow’ racial balancing and quotas, where elite universities like Harvard and woke employers play games to suit their desires for preferences that benefit perceived ‘marginalized’ groups.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Should Gay People Seek to Be Seen as ‘Normal’?

      by

      More from our inbox:Domingo Germán, Simply PerfectTrump and EvangelicalsArt in Private Hands, Lost to Public ViewMissing: Younger Women’s Voices Amir Hamja/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “As a Gay Man, I’ll Never Be Normal,” by Richard Morgan (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 25):Mr. Morgan just reinforces the concept of normalcy. Better that we just be ourselves, and ignore the labeling altogether.I live in a college town, and what I see every day is gender fluidity and sexual orientation boundaries continuing to be dissolved at a pace that middle-aged queers like me should find both inspirational and enviable. Young people today don’t care so much about the “who is normal/abnormal” space that the author writes about.We should not retreat from the many hues in our “rainbow” of people, including all those who dwell in the borders. We should neither spend too much time separating out the colors (as the author does), nor dig our heels into concepts of “true” or “pure” queerness.Young people aren’t normalizing queer; they are finding newer and braver ways of being themselves. Whether that means walking in a parade, or never doing it; whether obviously or imperceptibly gender fluid; whether in, out or through the back closet into Narnia; whether normal, abnormal, homogenized or wildly unique. Everyone belongs, and we should have a wide open door.James SeniorMarquette, Mich.To the Editor:Richard Morgan makes the mistake that countless individuals have made in equating heterosexuality with normality and being gay with … something else. Heterosexuality isn’t normal … it’s just common.Yes, Mr. Morgan, as gay folks, you and I are in a distinct minority. But why take on the burden of allowing others to categorize us as abnormal?Yes, homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality, but it’s entirely natural and entirely normal. Raise your consciousness, brother.Jim SkofieldWalpole, N.H.To the Editor:“As a Gay Man, I’ll Never Be Normal” was such a touching reflection of emotions I’ve long held myself. As a teenager I cried and prayed for the “normalcy” he described, but only now have realized that it was ease I hoped for. As a proud gay man I’m happy to have survived such a difficult and uneasy journey to adulthood.The Human Rights Campaign’s messaging for marriage equality, grounded in the claim that gay relationships are deserving of equal protection because they are just like straight relationships, did unmeasurable good for the community. But it was flawed in the sense that it set a requirement of likeness for legitimacy.We aren’t like heterosexuals; we often live and love very differently and across a wide spectrum. I’ve seen a shift in the queer community away from “we’re just like you” messaging recently, and applaud those who demand acceptance despite their differences.While this might not be the easiest path to tolerance, it’s the only path to acceptance.Austin RichardsChicagoTo the Editor:I do not agree with Richard Morgan that “L.G.B.T.Q. folks have a peculiar interest in normalization.” Whether or not he, or I, or any gay man feels either “normal” or “normalized” matters only to the individual.What seems much more important is that our legal, religious and educational institutions come to understand that a society composed of people of varying sexual and gender identities is, in the end, what is truly “normal.”David CastronuovoRomeTo the Editor:Richard Morgan is right. As a gay man, I will never be “normal,” even if I always wanted to be accepted like everyone else. I have accepted that truth now and have offered that up as my cross to bear.But I am grateful for the empathy and caring it taught me and for the kindness of strangers, and, of course, for my kind and strong husband.It’s OK to be different. Just learn to let go of the stress and anger it can sometimes bring.Patrick Sampson-BabineauEdmonds, Wash.Domingo Germán, Simply PerfectDomingo Germán of the Yankees needed only 99 pitches to complete a perfect game against the Oakland Athletics.Godofredo A. Vásquez/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Yankees Pitcher Throws M.L.B.’s First Perfect Game Since 2012” (Sports, nytimes.com, June 29):He had been so imperfect his last two starts. His statistics were ghastly. And before that, there was the 10-game suspension for being the poster child for this year’s worst sin: a pitcher with too much sticky stuff on his hands.He was a mere afterthought in the starting rotation, an asterisk caused by injury to others. Domingo Germán, hanging on by a thread.So Wednesday night seemed more likely a final chance, a last gasp at redemption rather than a ticket to baseball immortality.Maybe his choice of uniform number — zero — was prophetic. Maybe mere serendipity that he had his best stuff against a uniquely inept opponent, the Oakland Athletics. Whatever the cause, there it was, and there it will be in perpetuity.My most prized piece of sports memorabilia is a ball signed by the pitchers and catchers of the three previous perfect games thrown by the Yankees. Suddenly, that ball needs two more signatures. But I forgive Mr. Germán his transgression.Not good. Not great. Perfect.Robert S. NussbaumFort Lee, N.J.Trump and EvangelicalsIn an effort to consolidate evangelical support, former President Donald J. Trump emphasized his role in appointing three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Burnishes Judicial Record at Evangelical Conference: ‘This Guy Ended Roe’” (news article, June 26):Evangelicals’ support for such a morally compromised and ethically challenged individual as Donald Trump never ceases to amaze me. Their dubious rationalization for this — that he brought an end to Roe v. Wade — borders on the absurd, given that every Republican candidate running in 2016 and today would have nominated three “pro-life” nominees for the Supreme Court if afforded the same opportunity that Mr. Trump had as president.So why continue to support someone who has made a mockery of almost every fundamental Christian value and endorse such a deplorable example of leadership for our youth when so many others are available who represent those values so much better?Ira BelskyFranklin Lakes, N.J.Art in Private Hands, Lost to Public ViewTo the Editor:Re “$108.4 Million Sale Sets Auction Record for Klimt” (news article, June 28), about the sale of “Lady With a Fan”:Art sold to private collectors is often lost to public view. As someone who spent many years researching Gustav Klimt and his work, I found that your story raised critical issues about ownership and access to important paintings.When the philanthropist and World War II restitution activist Ronald S. Lauder purchased “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I” for a record $135 million in 2006, he put the portrait in the Neue Galerie in Manhattan, where it has remained on continuous display.By contrast, “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II” is now in private, unnamed ownership in China, and “Lady With a Fan” is now in the possession of a private collector in Hong Kong.Klimt’s paintings show us the lost world of his Jewish patrons in turn-of-the-century Vienna. Some may applaud Sotheby’s record European sale, but art is more than a commodity; it is part of our shared history.When a painting is sold to private collectors for record millions, it becomes unaffordable to museums and too often inaccessible to the people who would appreciate its beauty and significance.Laurie Lico AlbaneseMontclair, N.J.The writer is the author of “Stolen Beauty,” a novel about the creation and restitution of “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I.”Missing: Younger Women’s VoicesTo the Editor:Re “Nine Kansas Women on Abortion” (“America in Focus” series, Opinion, June 25):Come on! Of the nine women who discussed their thoughts and votes on abortion, the youngest was 37 years old. The other women interviewed were in their 40s, 50s and 60s!Why be so removed from the women who are the hardest hit subjects of the bans? You should have given readers a chance to hear from the many fertile women in their teens and 20s whose bodily autonomy is being challenged now.Lisa LumpkinOsprey, Fla. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Koch Network Raises Over $70 Million for Push to Sink Trump

      by

      Americans for Prosperity Action is wading into a Republican presidential primary for the first time, and waiting to see which candidate it will get behind for 2024.The political network established by the conservative industrialists Charles and David Koch has raised more than $70 million for political races as it looks to help Republicans move past Donald J. Trump, a Federal Election Commission filing will show, according to an official with the group.According to a preliminary draft of the filings for the group, Americans for Prosperity Action, its major donors include Art Pope, a North Carolina businessman who attended a policy retreat hosted by former Vice President Mike Pence before he joined the presidential race; Craig Duchossois, a Chicago businessman; Jim and Rob Walton, brothers and heirs to the Walmart fortune; and Ron Cameron, an Arkansas poultry magnate.Two groups closely affiliated with Charles Koch contributed $50 million of the money. Mr. Koch is a major shareholder in Koch Industries, which contributed $25 million to Americans for Prosperity Action, the draft of the filings shows. Another $25 million was donated by Stand Together, a nonprofit he founded.With this large sum to start, the network plans to throw its weight into the G.O.P. presidential nominating contest for the first time in its history. The network spent nearly $500 million supporting Republican candidates and conservative policies in the 2020 election cycle alone.The Koch network’s goal in the 2024 presidential primaries, which has been described only indirectly in written internal communications, is to stop Mr. Trump from winning the Republican nomination. In February, a top political official in the network, Emily Seidel, wrote a memo to donors and activists saying it was time to “have a president in 2025 who represents a new chapter.”Since then, Republican voters have rallied around the former president, with his support in polls strengthening his front-runner status after his two indictments. Some of the biggest donors in Republican politics, including some in the Koch network, had been hanging their hopes on Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida as Mr. Trump’s most promising rival. But Mr. DeSantis has disconcerted many donors with his early campaign stumbles and a slip in his poll numbers.With seven months until the primaries, the Koch coalition of conservatives is still searching for who its influential and wealthy donors believe can take down the former president, a reflection of a broader paralysis among anti-Trump Republican donors who have watched in shock as Mr. Trump’s poll numbers have held despite two indictments. A memo that circulated inside the Koch network this month made the case that Mr. Trump’s renomination was not inevitable, arguing that the issue of electability could still weaken him.Some Republican donors see Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida as the candidate most likely to defeat Mr. Trump in the primary. But Mr. DeSantis’s early campaign stumbles and slip in his poll numbers have concerned other donors. Christopher Lee for The New York TimesSome top Republican donors, who routinely write seven- or eight-figure checks to support candidates, are keeping their checkbooks closed as they wait to see whether Mr. DeSantis can improve or whether another candidate, like Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, pops during the summer debates. Their paralysis has benefited Mr. Trump, who is begrudgingly viewed by many top party donors as the inevitable nominee.Yet officials in the Koch network profess optimism that 2024 will not be a repeat of 2016, when Mr. Trump began winning statewide races with roughly a third of the party’s Republican base behind him in a fractured, crowded field.The notion of Mr. Trump’s inevitability “is being pushed by left-leaning media outlets, political operatives and the Trump campaign itself,” Michael Palmer, president of the Koch-affiliated voter data group i360, wrote in a memo this month.Mr. Palmer sought to dispel that narrative: “The country is in a much different place than it was eight years ago. Voters of all stripes (including G.O.P. primary voters) have a changed base of knowledge regarding the former president, and other candidates will most certainly treat him differently in the primary this time around.”Yet save for a handful of rivals, most have walked fairly gingerly around Mr. Trump, or have defended him over his two criminal indictments.Mr. Palmer argued that Mr. Trump was weaker than he appeared. He noted how much time was left in the campaign, the fact that early polling often doesn’t predict the winner, that many voters express concern about Mr. Trump’s general-election viability, and that a chunk of the former president’s voters have signaled openness to another, “more electable” candidate.Mr. Palmer wrote that “support for DeSantis at this time likely represents a generic Republican as his policy positions are not well known outside of Florida.”The group is expected to make a new round of digital advertising on the issue of electability in the presidential race, in addition to sending out its first piece of direct mail in the coming days.The group has also made a series of endorsements in down-ballot races, where it plans to spend significant sums. Americans for Prosperity has 300 full-time employees within states and 800 part-timers, officials said. It is about to make its first round of congressional endorsements.Some conservative donors want to see if Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, or another candidate, can gain momentum.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesIt’s not clear how soon before the Iowa caucuses early next year the group will decide on the best candidate to back against Mr. Trump.Mr. DeSantis has taken several positions that are ideologically at odds with the network, including his promise to repeal the First Step Act — a criminal justice reform bill that was passed during the Trump presidency with the strong backing of the Koch network. Yet the group’s officials may ultimately choose pragmatism over strict agreement on key issues if it looks as though a candidate could win.As they wait for the Republican field to winnow, top network officials are trying to pull off a difficult feat: changing who votes in Republican primaries. The network has a vast army of door-knockers, backed by tens of millions of dollars, who fan out across competitive states each election cycle to support candidates.During these early months of the Republican presidential primaries, the network is dispatching these same activists to engage voters who are open to supporting somebody other than Mr. Trump. They are beginning a conversation with those voters, collecting data on them and raising doubts about Mr. Trump’s chances of winning a general election. They intend to return to these voters’ doors closer to the primaries to try to persuade them to vote for the network’s preferred candidate.“A key part of our strategy to elect better leaders is to empower more people’s voices in the primaries,” Ms. Seidel said in a statement. “We’re asking general election voters to show up in the primaries to support better candidates — and in speaking to tens of thousands of those voters already, they are enthusiastic to get engaged earlier to support a candidate who can win.”This well-funded effort to defeat Mr. Trump represents something of a do-over. Ahead of the 2016 Republican primaries, Marc Short, a senior Koch official at the time, argued internally that the network should spend heavily to stop Mr. Trump and support a rival with a more conservative policy record, such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas or Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.Top officials and donors killed the idea, but some in the network regretted it. Mr. Short has come full circle. He went on to join the Trump-Pence campaign and served in the Trump administration as legislative affairs director and then chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence. Mr. Short is now advising Mr. Pence as he runs for president against his former boss. More