Presidents and Presidency (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Qué pasa si un candidato a la presidencia de EE. UU. es condenado

      by

      Las leyes estadounidenses y la Constitución brindan respuestas claras solo para algunas dudas que surgen. Otras podrían lanzar al país a territorio desconocido.Desde que Eugene Debs hizo campaña desde una celda de prisión hace más de un siglo, en Estados Unidos no se había visto lo que podría ocurrir ahora: un candidato importante condenado por un delito grave que contiende a la presidencia. Y nunca antes ese candidato había sido alguien con posibilidades reales de ganar.El expresidente Donald Trump no enfrenta restricciones de campaña. Aunque ha sido acusado de decenas de delitos graves en dos casos, uno federal y uno en Nueva York, aún falta mucho para que haya veredictos. Y existen muchas incertidumbres, entre ellas si los procedimientos van a obstaculizar la campaña de Trump a nivel práctico o si comenzarán a perjudicarlo en las encuestas de una manera que no lo han hecho hasta ahora.Pero si es condenado por alguno de los delitos graves, las cosas se complican y la Constitución y la legislación estadounidense solo tienen respuestas claras para algunas pocas de las cuestiones que surgirían.Otras llevarían al país por un territorio totalmente desconocido y las decisiones más importantes quedarían en manos de jueces federales.Esto es lo que sabemos y lo que no.¿Trump puede contender a la presidencia si es condenado?Esta es la pregunta más sencilla de todas. La respuesta es sí.La Constitución establece muy pocos requisitos de elegibilidad para los presidentes. Deben tener al menos 35 años, ser ciudadanos naturales “de nacimiento” y haber vivido en Estados Unidos al menos 14 años.No hay limitaciones basadas en la reputación o los antecedentes penales (aunque algunos estados prohíben a los delincuentes contender a cargos estatales y locales, estas leyes no se aplican a los cargos federales).¿Su campaña se vería limitada?Para decirlo de forma obvia, sería logísticamente difícil hacer campaña para la presidencia desde la cárcel. Ningún candidato de un partido mayoritario lo ha hecho nunca. Debs se presentó por el Partido Socialista en 1920 y recibió alrededor del 3 por ciento de los votos.Pero el equipo de campaña de Trump podría encargarse de la recaudación de fondos y otras actividades de la campaña en su ausencia y es muy poco probable que Trump pudiera ser inhabilitado para aparecer en las boletas electorales.El Partido Republicano y el Partido Demócrata tienen espacios garantizados en las boletas de las elecciones generales en todos los estados y los partidos indican a las autoridades electorales qué nombre poner en su lugar. Los estados podrían, en teoría, tratar de mantener a Trump fuera de las papeletas aprobando leyes que exijan no tener antecedentes penales, pero esto sería sobre un terreno jurídicamente inestable.“Dejamos que los estados decidan la hora, el sitio y la forma” de las elecciones, dijo Jessica Levinson, profesora de la Escuela de Derecho Loyola especializada en derecho electoral, “pero creo que la mejor lectura de nuestra Constitución es que no se permite que el estado añada nuevos requisitos sustantivos”.Si bien esa perspectiva no es universal entre los juristas, sí ganó en un tribunal en 2019, cuando California intentó exigir que los candidatos difundieran sus declaraciones de impuestos a fin de aparecer en las papeletas de las primeras. Un juez federal de distrito bloqueó el fallo, al indicar que lo más probable es que fuera inconstitucional. La Corte Suprema de California también la bloqueó de manera unánime como violación de la constitución estatal, y el caso nunca llegó a la Corte Suprema de EE. UU.¿Podría votar?Probablemente no.Trump está empadronado para votar en Florida y, en caso de ser condenado por un delito grave, sería privado del derecho al voto allí.La mayoría de los delincuentes en Florida recuperan su derecho a votar al terminar de cumplir su condena, incluida la libertad condicional, y el pago de todas las multas y cuotas. Pero es muy poco probable que Trump, en caso de ser condenado, tenga tiempo de cumplir su condena antes del día de las elecciones.Como Trump también tiene residencia en Nueva York, podría cambiar su registro de votante a ese estado para aprovechar que es más permisivo: en Nueva York, los delincuentes pueden votar cuando se encuentran en libertad condicional. Pero, en Florida y en casi todos los demás estados, siguen privados del derecho de voto mientras están en prisión.Así que si Trump fuera enviado a prisión, se encontrará en la extraordinaria situación de ser considerado apto para ser votado, pero no apto para votar.¿Qué sucede si resulta electo desde prisión?Nadie sabe.“Estamos muy lejos de cualquier cosa que haya ocurrido”, dijo Erwin Chemerinsky, experto en derecho constitucional de la Universidad de California en Berkeley. “Son solo conjeturas”.Desde el punto de vista jurídico, Trump seguiría siendo elegible para ser presidente incluso si fuera a prisión. La Constitución no dice nada en contra. “No creo que los constituyentes pensaran en ningún momento que íbamos a estar en esta situación”, dijo Levinson.En la práctica, la elección de un presidente preso crearía una crisis jurídica que casi con toda seguridad tendrían que resolver los tribunales.En teoría, Trump podría ser despojado de su autoridad en virtud de la Vigésima Quinta Enmienda, que establece un proceso para transferir la autoridad al vicepresidente si el presidente es “incapaz de cumplir con los poderes y deberes de su cargo”. Pero eso requeriría que el vicepresidente y una mayoría del Gabinete declararan a Trump incapaz de cumplir con sus obligaciones, una perspectiva remota dado que se trataría de leales designados por el propio Trump.Lo más probable es que Trump pudiera presentar una demanda para ser liberado con el argumento de que su encarcelamiento le impide cumplir sus obligaciones constitucionales como presidente. Un caso así podría centrarse en la separación de poderes y los abogados de Trump argumentarían que mantener en prisión a un presidente debidamente elegido equivaldría a una infracción del poder judicial en perjuicio de las operaciones del poder ejecutivo.También podría intentar indultarse a sí mismo, o conmutar su sentencia, dejando su condena en vigor pero poniendo fin a su encarcelamiento. Cualquiera de las dos acciones constituiría una afirmación extraordinaria del poder presidencial, y la Corte Suprema sería el árbitro final en cuanto a la constitucionalidad de un “autoperdón”.O, antes de dejar el cargo, el presidente Joe Biden podría indultar a Trump con base en que “el pueblo se ha manifestado y necesito perdonarlo para que pueda gobernar”, dijo Chemerinsky.¿Y qué pasa si resulta electo y una de las causas penales sigue en proceso?De nuevo, nadie sabe. Pero un resultado probable sería que un fiscal general nombrado por Trump retirara los cargos y diera por terminado el caso.El Departamento de Justicia no acusa a presidentes en funciones, conforme a una política esbozada en un memorando de 1973, durante la era de Richard Nixon. Nunca había sido necesario desarrollar una política sobre qué hacer con un presidente entrante que ya ha sido acusado. Pero el razonamiento para no acusar a los presidentes en funciones —algo que interferiría con la capacidad de fungir como tal— aplica del mismo modo en este escenario hipotético.“Las razones por las que no querríamos acusar a un presidente en funciones son las razones por las que no querríamos procesar a un presidente en funciones”, ha dicho Chemerinsky, que ha estado en desacuerdo con el razonamiento del departamento. “Mi conjetura es que, si el proceso continuara y Trump resultara electo, el Departamento de Justicia— que sería el Departamento de Justicia de Trump— diría: ‘Nos apegamos al memorando de 1973’”.Esto, como muchas otras cosas aquí planteadas, sería algo sin precedente legal, y es imposible saber qué haría la Corte Suprema si se le presentara la cuestión.En su fallo del caso Clinton contra Jones en 1997, el tribunal permitió que procediera una demanda contra el presidente Bill Clinton. Pero se trataba de un caso civil, no penal, y lo había presentado un ciudadano privado, no el mismo gobierno.Charlie Savage More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What Happens if a Presidential Candidate Is Convicted?

      by

      The Constitution and American law have clear answers for only some of the questions that would arise. Others would bring the country into truly uncharted territory.Not since Eugene V. Debs campaigned from a prison cell more than a century ago has the United States experienced what might now happen: a prominent candidate with a felony conviction running for president. And never before has that candidate been someone with a real chance of winning.Former President Donald J. Trump faces no campaign restrictions. Though he has been charged with dozens of felonies across two cases, one federal and one in New York, verdicts are a long way off. And there are many uncertainties, including whether the proceedings will hinder Mr. Trump’s campaign in practical ways or begin to hurt him in the polls in a way they have not so far.But if he is convicted on any of the felony counts, things get more complicated — and the Constitution and American law have clear answers for only some of the questions that would arise.Others would bring the country into truly uncharted territory, with huge decisions resting in the hands of federal judges.Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.Can Trump run if he is convicted?This is the simplest question of the bunch. The answer is yes.The Constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. They must be at least 35 years old, be “natural born” citizens and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.There are no limitations based on character or criminal record. (While some states prohibit felons from running for state and local office, these laws do not apply to federal offices.) Would his campaign be restricted?To offer an obvious understatement, it would be logistically difficult to run for president from prison. No major-party candidate has ever done it. Mr. Debs ran for the Socialist Party in 1920 and received about 3 percent of the vote.But Mr. Trump’s campaign staff could handle fund-raising and other campaign activities in his absence, and it is very unlikely that Mr. Trump could be disqualified from appearing on ballots.The Republican and Democratic Parties have guaranteed spots on general-election ballots in every state, and the parties tell election officials whose name to put in their spot. States could, in theory, try to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot by passing legislation requiring a clean criminal record, but this would be on legally shaky ground.“We let states set the time, place and manner” of elections, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School who specializes in election law, “but I think the best reading of our Constitution is you don’t let the state add new substantive requirements.”While that view is not universal among legal experts, it won in court in 2019, when California tried to require candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on primary ballots. A federal district judge blocked the rule, saying it was most likely unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court also unanimously blocked it as a violation of the state constitution, and the case never reached the U.S. Supreme Court.Could he vote?Probably not.Mr. Trump is registered to vote in Florida, and he would be disenfranchised there if convicted of a felony.Most felons in Florida regain voting rights after completing their full sentence, including parole or probation, and paying all fines and fees. But it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump, if convicted, would have time to complete his sentence before Election Day.Since Mr. Trump also has a residence in New York, he could switch his voter registration there to take advantage of its more permissive approach: Felons in New York can vote while on parole or probation. But, as in Florida and almost every other state, they are still disenfranchised while in prison.So if Mr. Trump is imprisoned, he will be in the extraordinary position of being deemed fit to be voted for, but unfit to vote.What happens if he is elected from prison?No one knows.“We’re so far removed from anything that’s ever happened,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s just guessing.”Legally, Mr. Trump would remain eligible to be president even if he were imprisoned. The Constitution says nothing to the contrary. “I don’t think that the framers ever thought we were going to be in this situation,” Professor Levinson said.In practice, the election of an incarcerated president would create a legal crisis that would almost certainly need to be resolved by the courts.In theory, Mr. Trump could be stripped of his authority under the 25th Amendment, which provides a process to transfer authority to the vice president if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” But that would require the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare Mr. Trump unable to fulfill his duties, a remote prospect given that these would be loyalists appointed by Mr. Trump himself.More likely, Mr. Trump could sue to be released on the basis that his imprisonment was preventing him from fulfilling his constitutional obligations as president. Such a case would probably focus on the separation of powers, with Mr. Trump’s lawyers arguing that keeping a duly elected president in prison would be an infringement by the judicial branch on the operations of the executive branch.He could also try to pardon himself — or to commute his sentence, leaving his conviction in place but ending his imprisonment. Either action would be an extraordinary assertion of presidential power, and the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of whether a “self pardon” was constitutional.Or President Biden, on his way out the door, could pardon Mr. Trump on the basis that “the people have spoken and I need to pardon him so he can govern,” Professor Chemerinsky said.What if he’s elected with a case still in progress?Again, no one knows. But a likely outcome would be that a Trump-appointed attorney general would withdraw the charges and end the case.The Justice Department does not indict sitting presidents, a policy outlined in a 1973 memo, during the Nixon era. It has never had reason to develop a policy on what to do with an incoming president who has already been indicted. But the rationale for not indicting sitting presidents — that it would interfere with their ability to perform their duties — applies just as well in this hypothetical scenario.“The reasons why we wouldn’t want to indict a sitting president are the reasons we wouldn’t want to prosecute a sitting president,” said Professor Chemerinsky, who has disagreed with the department’s reasoning. “My guess is, if the Trump prosecution were still ongoing in some way and Trump were elected, the Justice Department — which would be the Trump Justice Department — would say, ‘We’re following the 1973 memo.’”Like so much else here, this would be legally untested, and it is impossible to say what the Supreme Court would do if the question reached it.In its Clinton v. Jones ruling in 1997, the court allowed a lawsuit against President Bill Clinton to proceed. But that case was civil, not criminal, and it was filed by a private citizen, not by the government itself.Charlie Savage More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      I Won’t Let Donald Trump Invade My Brain

      by

      I try to be a reasonable person. I try to be someone who looks out on the world with trusting eyes. Over the decades, I’ve built up certain expectations about how the world works and how people behave. I rely on those expectations as I do my job, analyzing events and anticipating what will happen next.And yet I’ve found that Donald Trump has confounded me at every turn. I’ve found that I’m not cynical enough to correctly anticipate what he is capable of.I have consistently underestimated his depravity. I was shocked at how thuggishly Trump behaved in that first debate with Joe Biden in 2020. As the Jan. 6 committee hearings progressed, I was stunned to find out just how aggressively Trump had worked to overthrow the election. And then, just last week, in reading his federal indictment, I was once again taken aback to learn how flagrantly he had breached national security.And yet I can’t quite feel ashamed of my perpetual naïveté toward Donald Trump. I don’t want to be the kind of person who can easily enter the head of an amoral narcissist.I’d rather not let him infect my brain. I’d rather not let that guy alter my views of the world. If occasional naïveté is the price for mental independence from Trump, I’m willing to pay it.I’ve been thinking about all this while bracing for the 17 months of campaigning that apparently lie ahead, with Trump probably once again the central focus of the nation’s consciousness. I’m thinking about how we will once again be forced to defend our inner sanctums as he seeks, on a minute-by-minute basis, to take up residence in our brains.I cling to a worldview that is easy to ridicule. I hold the belief that most people, while flawed, seek to be good. I hold the belief that our institutions, while fraying, are basically legitimate and deserve our respect. I hold the belief that character matters, and that good people ultimately prosper and unethical people are ultimately undone.I don’t think this worldview is born of childish innocence. It comes out of my direct experience with life, and after thousands of interviews, covering real-life politicians like Barack Obama, John McCain and Mitt Romney.Donald Trump, by his mere presence, is an assault on this worldview. Trump is a tyrant. As Aristotle observed all those many years ago, tyranny is all about arbitrariness. When a tyrant has power, there is no rule of law, there is no governing order. There is only the whim of the tyrant. There is only his inordinate desire to have more than his fair share of everything.Under political tyranny external laws become arbitrary. Even when Trump doesn’t wield state power, when he is merely campaigning, Trump wields cultural power. Under cultural tyranny internal values become arbitrary too — based on his whims and lusts of the moment.The categories we use to evaluate the world lose their meaning — cruelty and kindness, integrity and corruption, honesty and dishonesty, generosity and selfishness. High-minded values begin to seem credulous and absurd, irrelevant to the situation at hand. Trump’s mere presence spreads his counter-gospel: People are basically selfish; raw power runs the world. All that matters is winning and losing. Under his influence, subtly and insidiously, people develop more nihilistic mind-sets.Trump has already corroded the Republican Party in just this way. Let me focus on one value that Trump has already dissolved: the idea that there should be some connection between the beliefs you have in your head and the words that come out of your mouth. If you say something you don’t believe, you should at least have a twinge of guilt about your hypocrisy.I used to at least hear Republicans express guilt privately when they publicly supported a guy they held in contempt. That guilt seems to have gone away. Even the contempt has gone away. Many Republicans have switched off the moral faculty, having apparently concluded that personal morality doesn’t matter.Trump’s corrosive influence spreads far beyond his party. Any stable social order depends on a sense of legitimacy. This is the belief and faith that the people who have been given authority have a right to govern. They wield power for the common good.Trump assaults this value too. Prosecutors are not serving the rule of law, he insists, but are Joe Biden’s political pawns. Civil servants are nothing but “deep state” operatives to take Trump down. This cynical attitude has become pervasive in our society. Proper skepticism toward our institutions has turned into endemic distrust, a jaundiced cynicism that says: I’m onto the game; it’s corruption all the way down.Over the coming months, we face not merely a political contest, but a battle between those of us who believe in ideals, even though it can make us seem naïve at times, and those who argue that life is a remorseless struggle for selfish gain. Their victory would be a step toward cultural barbarism.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In Legal Peril, Trump Tries to Shift the Spotlight to Biden

      by

      Donald J. Trump, who is under indictment, is trying to undermine the American justice system by lashing out at his successor.Under indictment and enraged, former President Donald J. Trump — with the help of Republican allies, social media supporters and Fox News — is lashing out at his successor in the hopes of undermining the charges against him.“A corrupt sitting president!” Mr. Trump blared on Tuesday night after being arrested and pleading not guilty in Miami. “The Biden administration has turned us into a banana republic,” one of his longtime advisers wrote in a fund-raising email. “Wannabe dictator,” read a chyron on Fox News, accusing Mr. Biden of having his political rival arrested.The accusations against Mr. Biden are being presented without any evidence that they are true, and Mr. Trump’s claims of an unfair prosecution came even after Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed a special counsel specifically to insulate the inquiries from political considerations.But that hardly seems to be the point for Mr. Trump and his allies as they make a concerted effort to smear Mr. Biden and erode confidence in the legal system. Just hours after his arraignment, Mr. Trump promised payback if he wins the White House in 2024.“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,” Mr. Trump said during remarks at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.On Twitter, the former president’s followers used words like “traitor,” “disgrace,” “corrupt” and “biggest liar” to describe the current president. And while Fox News said on Wednesday that the “wannabe dictator” headline was “taken down immediately” and addressed, the network counts Mr. Trump’s many followers as loyal viewers.The response from Mr. Biden and his advisers has been studious silence.The president has vowed not to give the slightest hint that he is interfering in the criminal case against Mr. Trump, and he has ordered his White House aides and campaign staff members not to comment. That decision has quieted what is usually a robust rapid response team that aims to counter Republican attacks.The president’s press aides responsible for instantly blasting out pro-Biden commentary to reporters have gone dark. Even Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, issued a terse “no comment” on Wednesday.Jill Biden, the first lady, broke the code of silence on Monday, telling donors at a fund-raiser in New York that she was shocked that Republicans were not bothered by Mr. Trump’s indictment. “My heart feels so broken by a lot of the headlines that we see on the news,” she said at the event, according to The Associated Press.The attorney general also weighed in — somewhat — on Wednesday with his first public comments since Mr. Trump was charged. He took the opportunity to defend Jack Smith, the special counsel, as “a veteran career prosecutor.”“He has assembled a group of experienced and talented prosecutors and agents who share his commitment to integrity and the rule of law,” Mr. Garland said.Still, the no-comment strategy out of the White House is reminiscent of the determined silence by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election and links between Russian operatives and Mr. Trump’s campaign. Mr. Mueller said virtually nothing for more than a year as Mr. Trump and his allies attacked his investigation and his motives.Like Mr. Mueller’s approach, Mr. Biden’s refusal to comment is intended to make sure he does not provide ammunition that his adversaries can try to use to undermine his credibility and integrity.But in the end, the sustained assault on Mr. Mueller and his investigation helped Mr. Trump create a false narrative and survive the damning revelations contained in the more than 400-page report bearing the prosecutor’s name.On Wednesday, when a reporter noted that Mr. Trump had accused Mr. Biden of “having him arrested, effectively directing his arrest,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said, “I’m not going to comment.”Eddie Vale, a longtime Democratic strategist, said the White House position made sense, given the need to avoid even the hint that Mr. Biden was meddling in Mr. Trump’s case.But he said members of outside Democratic groups would most likely begin coming to Mr. Biden’s defense if the attacks continued.“This is such a charged and hot subject,” Mr. Vale said. “There’s nothing to be gained by weighing in. But I think as it goes on, you will have folks on the outer circle weighing in.”Strategists for Mr. Trump promise that the attacks will continue.Chris LaCivita, a senior campaign consultant for Mr. Trump, said on Wednesday that it was fair to assign responsibility for the investigation to Mr. Biden because the special counsel was appointed by Mr. Biden’s attorney general.“There’s a thing called in government, the chain of command,” he said.America First Legal, the pro-Trump group founded by Stephen Miller, the architect of the former president’s immigration agenda, sent out a fund-raising appeal on Wednesday morning, using the indictment as a rallying cry.The theme has been echoed by Mr. Trump’s staunchest allies in Congress, who trained their ire on Mr. Biden even as they also railed against the Justice Department, the F.B.I., the “mainstream media” and Democrats generally.Most of them, it seemed, were trying to goad Mr. Biden into a reaction.“I, and every American who believes in the rule of law, stand with President Trump against this grave injustice,” tweeted Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the leading Republican in Congress.Mr. Biden has so far focused on governing.On Tuesday, the president met with Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO, in the Oval Office. Later, he hosted a Juneteenth concert on the South Lawn of the White House, an event where it was easy to avoid the subject of Mr. Trump.“To me, making Juneteenth a federal holiday wasn’t just a symbolic gesture,” Mr. Biden told the crowd in brief remarks. “It was a statement of fact for this country to acknowledge the original sin of slavery.”But it is likely to get more difficult to refrain from wading into the Trump situation.On Saturday, the president is scheduled to attend a political rally with union supporters in Philadelphia. It is the kind of event where he would be expected to draw the contrast between himself and his rivals. Mr. Biden may be able to navigate that issue in the short term; Mr. Trump has a long way to go to win the Republican nomination.But if he does become Mr. Biden’s opponent for the presidency again, the strategy of avoidance may eventually have to change.As the first lady told donors at an event in California — referring to Mr. Trump’s four-year term in the White House: “We cannot go back to those dark days. And with your help, we won’t go back.” More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Have Made Their Choice

      by

      In the wake of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, Republican officeholders had three choices.They could stick with and defend Donald Trump and his riotous allies, and if they were members of the House or Senate, they could vote in support of the effort to overturn the results of the election, in a show of loyalty to the president and, in effect, the rioters.Or they could criticize and condemn the president as conservative dissenters, using their voices in an attempt to put the Republican Party back on a more traditional path.Or they could leave. They could quit the party and thus show the full extent of their anger and revulsion.But we know what actually happened. A few Republicans left and a few complained, but most remained loyal to the party and the president with nary a peep to make about the fact that Trump was willing to bring an end to constitutional government in the United States if it meant he could stay in office.We have been watching this dynamic play out a second time with Trump’s indictment on federal espionage charges for mishandling classified documents as a private citizen. The most prominent Republican officeholders wasted no time with their full-throated denunciations of the indictment, the Department of Justice and the Biden administration.“Let’s be clear about what’s happening: Joe Biden is weaponizing his Department of Justice against his own political rival,” said Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House. “This sham indictment is the continuation of the endless political persecution of Donald Trump.”“This indictment certainly looks like an unequal application of justice,” said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, who serves as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. “You can’t help but ask why this is happening. It feels political, and it’s rotten.”Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida said that the indictment was a “weaponization of federal law enforcement” that “represents a mortal threat to a free society,” and former vice president Mike Pence said he was “deeply troubled to see this indictment move forward” and vowed to “clean house” at the highest levels of the Justice Department if elected president.The only notable congressional Republican to really condemn Trump was Senator Mitt Romney of Utah. “By all appearances, the Justice Department and special counsel have exercised due care, affording Mr. Trump the time and opportunity to avoid charges that would not generally have been afforded to others,” he said in a statement. “Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so.”All of this is typical. With vanishingly few exceptions, Republicans are unwilling to discipline Trump or withdraw their support for his political leadership or even just criticize him for his actions. The most we’ve seen, Romney aside, is a nod to the fact that these are serious charges. This is a “serious case with serious allegations,” said Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who nonetheless added that this prosecution represented a “double standard” and that “You can’t protect Democrats while targeting and hunting Republicans.”There are several ways to think about most Republicans’ reluctance to break with Trump in the face of his egregious lawbreaking and contempt for constitutional government, but I want to focus on two in particular.The first concerns something that exists wherever there is a relationship between an individual and an institution: the loyalty of the individual to the institution. Political parties in particular are designed to inculcate a sense of loyalty and shared commitment among their members. This is especially true for officeholders, who exist in a web of relationships and obligations that rest on a set of common interests and beliefs.Loyalty makes it less likely that a dissenter just walks away, especially when there isn’t a plausible alternative. Few Trump-critical Republicans, for instance, are willing to become Democrats. What’s more, as the economist A.O. Hirschman observed in his classic text, “Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States,” strong loyalty to an institution like a political party might lead a dissenting or disapproving individual to hold on to his or her membership even more tightly, for fear that exit might open the door to even worse outcomes.“The ultimate in unhappiness and paradoxical loyalist behavior,” Hirschman wrote, “occurs when the public evil produced by the organization promises to accelerate or to reach some intolerable level as the organization deteriorates; then, in line with the reasoning just presented, the decision to exit will become ever more difficult the longer one fails to exit. The conviction that one has to stay on to prevent the worst grows stronger all the time.”Assuming this is all true, how then do we explain the reluctance to criticize or condemn? For that, we can look to the history of the modern Republican Party, stretching back to Richard Nixon. And what do we see? We see a pattern of presidential criminality and contempt for the Constitution, backed in each instance by most Republican officeholders and politicians.For Nixon, it was Watergate. For Ronald Reagan, it was Iran-contra. For George W. Bush, it was the sordid effort to fight a war in Iraq and the disgraceful use of torture against detainees. For Donald Trump, it was practically his entire presidency.Most things in life, and especially a basic respect for democracy and the rule of law, have to be cultivated. What is striking about the Republican Party is the extent to which it has, for decades now, cultivated the opposite — a highly instrumental view of our political system, in which rules and laws are legitimate only insofar as they allow for the acquisition and concentration of power in Republican hands.Most Republicans won’t condemn Trump. There are his millions of ultra-loyal voters, yes. And there are the challenges associated with breaking from the consensus of your political party, yes. But there is also the reality that Trump is the apotheosis of a propensity for lawlessness within the Republican Party. He is what the party and its most prominent figures have been building toward for nearly half a century. I think he knows it and I think they do too.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Indictment Puts Us Into Uncharted Waters

      by

      Former President Donald Trump finds himself once again facing indictment, this time in federal court, after an investigation into his handling of classified documents after departing the White House. The prospect of putting Mr. Trump on trial for serious crimes and sending him to prison has many Americans feeling giddy: Finally, justice might be done.Such reactions are understandable, but news of Mr. Trump’s legal jeopardy shouldn’t blind us to the political jeopardy that now confronts the nation.Other countries have tried, convicted and imprisoned former presidents, but the United States never has. We’ve been fortunate in this regard. Legal processes establish and maintain legitimacy by the appearance of impartiality. But when a public figure associated with one political party is prosecuted by officials associated with another, such appearances can become impossible to uphold. This is especially so when the public figure is a populist adept at exposing (and accusing opponents of concealing) base and self-interested motives behind righteous rhetoric about the rule of law.This corrosive dynamic is even more pronounced when the public figure is not only a former official but also a potential future one. Mr. Trump is running for president against President Biden, whose attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed the special counsel Jack Smith. That’s a scenario seemingly tailor-made to confirm and vindicate Mr. Trump’s longstanding claim that he’s the victim of a politically motivated witch hunt.We don’t have to speculate about the immediate political consequences. Public-spirited and law-abiding Americans believe the appropriate response of voters to news that their favored candidate faces indictment is to turn on him and run the other way. But the populist politics that are Mr. Trump’s specialty operate according to an inverse logic. Before the end of March, polls of the Republican primary electorate showed him hovering in the mid-40s and leading his nearest rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, by about 15 points. By the end of May, Mr. Trump was in the mid-50s and leading Mr. DeSantis by roughly 30 points.What happened at the end of March to elevate Mr. Trump’s standing? He was indicted by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg.Hard as it may be for some of us to believe, Mr. Trump’s indictment by the special counsel on federal charges could well boost him further, placing him in a position of even greater advantage against his rivals for the Republican nomination.That possibility typically prompts one of two responses from Democrats: one narrowly political (not to say cynical), the other more high-minded and focused on the law and public morals.The political response sees Mr. Trump benefiting in the G.O.P. primaries from indictment as a good thing, because the former president appears to be the most beatable alternative for Mr. Biden to face in the fall of 2024, and that will be even truer when Mr. Trump is embroiled in a federal trial on major charges and facing possible prison time. What’s good for Mr. Trump in the primaries, in other words, will be terrible for him in the general election.This may well be true, but not necessarily. Anyone who becomes one of two major party nominees has a shot at winning the White House. That’s especially true in our era of stark partisan polarization and intense negative partisanship. That Mr. Trump would be running against an opponent with persistently low approval ratings who will be 81 years old on Election Day 2024 only makes a Biden-Trump matchup more uncertain.The other response dismisses such concerns entirely. Let justice be done, we are told, though the heavens fall. To weigh political considerations in determining whether someone, even a former and possibly future president, should be prosecuted is to supposedly commit a grievous offense against the rule of law, because no one is above the law and the consequences of holding him or her to account shouldn’t matter.This is a powerful argument and one seemingly vindicated in the case of Mr. Trump, who has now managed to get himself ensnared in legal trouble in multiple jurisdictions dealing with a wide range of possible crimes. At a certain point, the logic of the law applying to everyone equally demands that the process be seen through.But that doesn’t mean we should deny the gravity of the potential consequences. Mr. Trump is not a standard-issue politician who happened to run afoul of corruption statutes. He’s a man who rose once to the presidency and seeks to return to it by mobilizing and enhancing mass suspicion of public institutions and officials. That’s why one of the first things he said after announcing the indictment on Thursday night was to proclaim it was “a DARK DAY for the United States of America.” It’s why die-hard supporters like Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio tweeted: “Sad day for America. God Bless President Trump.” It’s likely that tens of millions of our fellow citizens agree with the sentiment.To most Americans, such a reaction to news of Mr. Trump’s indictment seems unimaginable. But it’s clearly something sincerely felt by many. Our country has a history of lionizing outlaws — folk heroes who defy authority, especially when they claim to speak for, channel and champion the grievances and resentments of ordinary people against those in positions of power and influence. From the beginning of his 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump has portrayed himself as just such a man of defiance, eager to serve as a tribune for those who feel left behind, denigrated and humiliated by members of the establishment.That’s why the more concerted opposition Mr. Trump has faced from law enforcement, the mainstream media, Congress and other prominent people in our country and culture, the more popular he has become within his party. Efforts to rein him in — to defeat him politically and legally — have often backfired, vindicating him and his struggle in the eyes of his supporters.There’s no reason at all to suppose the prospect of Mr. Trump’s ending up a convicted criminal would disrupt this dynamic. On the contrary, it’s far more likely to transform him into something resembling a martyr to millions of Americans — and in the process to wrest those devoted supporters free from attachment to the rule of law altogether.How politically radical could the base of the Republican Party become over the 17 months between now and the 2024 presidential election? There’s really no way to know. We are heading into uncharted and turbulent waters.Damon Linker, a former columnist at The Week, writes the newsletter Notes From the Middleground and is a senior fellow in the Open Society Project at the Niskanen Center.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Los retos de la edad de Joe Biden y su reelección

      by

      En algún momento del invierno pasado, durante un viaje a Asia, despertaron al presidente Joe Biden a las 3 a. m. para decirle que un misil había impactado en Polonia, lo que desató el temor de que Rusia hubiera extendido la guerra de Ucrania a un aliado de la OTAN. En cuestión de horas, en medio de la noche, Biden consultó a sus altos asesores, llamó al presidente de Polonia y al secretario general de la OTAN y reunió a otros líderes mundiales para enfrentar la crisis.Y luego, hace unas cuantas semanas, cuando Biden era el anfitrión de algunos niños en el Día de Llevar a Tu Hijo al Trabajo, se confundió cuando intentó enumerar a sus nietos. “Pues déjenme ver. Tengo uno en Nueva York, dos en Filadelfia, ¿o tres? No, tres porque tengo una nieta que es… ya no sé. Me están confundiendo”. También se quedó en blanco cuando le preguntaron cuál era el último país que había visitado y el nombre de su película favorita.Estos dos Joe Biden coexisten en el mismo presidente octogenario: sagaz e inteligente en momentos cruciales como resultado de décadas de experiencia, capaz de estar a la altura de las circunstancias para hacer frente a un mundo peligroso, incluso en la quietud de la noche. Pero un poco más lento, más blando, con más dificultades auditivas, más vacilante en su andar y un poco más proclive a fallas ocasionales de memoria que pueden resultar habituales para alguien que ha llegado a la novena década de su vida o que tiene algún progenitor que haya alcanzado esa edad.La difícil realidad del presidente más viejo de Estados Unidos fue resumida el jueves cuando el Congreso aprobó un acuerdo bipartidista que él negoció para evitar un incumplimiento del pago de la deuda nacional. Incluso el presidente de la Cámara Baja, el representante republicano por California, Kevin McCarthy, declaró que Biden había sido “muy profesional, inteligente y duro” durante las conversaciones. Pero justo antes de que se pusieran en marcha las votaciones, Biden se tropezó con un saco de arena en la graduación de la Academia de la Fuerza Aérea y cayó al suelo. El video se hizo viral, sus partidarios se abochornaron y sus detractores arremetieron.Cualquiera puede tropezarse a cualquier edad, pero es inevitable que si le ocurre a un presidente de 80 años haya preguntas incómodas. Si fuera cualquier otra persona, tal vez no serían notorios los signos de la edad, pero Biden es el jefe del país más poderoso del mundo y se acaba de lanzar a una campaña para que los electores lo mantengan en la Casa Blanca hasta que cumpla 86 años, lo cual atrae una mayor atención a un problema que, según las encuestas, preocupa a la mayoría de los estadounidenses y es motivo de gran zozobra entre los líderes del partido.“¿Ustedes dicen que soy viejo?”, dijo en una cena de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca en abril. “Yo digo que soy sabio”.Yuri Gripas para The New York TimesLa imagen que surge de las entrevistas realizadas durante varios meses con decenas de funcionarios y exfuncionarios, y con otras personas que han pasado algún tiempo con el presidente, es una mezcla entre la caricatura de un anciano aturullado y fácilmente manipulable promovida por los republicanos y la imagen que difunde su personal de un presidente con gafas de aviador que dirige la escena mundial y gobierna con brío.Es la de un hombre disminuido por la edad de maneras más marcadas que solo el encanecimiento del cabello que ha sido común entre los presidentes más recientes durante sus mandatos. En ocasiones, Biden confunde las palabras y parece mayor que antes por su modo de andar torpe y su voz débil.No obstante, las personas que habitualmente tratan con él, incluso algunos de sus adversarios, afirman que sigue siendo sagaz e imponente en las reuniones privadas. Los diplomáticos comparten anécdotas de viajes a sitios como Ucrania, Japón, Egipto, Camboya e Indonesia, en donde casi siempre tiene más resistencia que sus colegas más jóvenes. Los legisladores demócratas destacan una larga lista de logros como prueba de que sigue haciendo bien su trabajo.Sus amigos señalan que sus desaciertos verbales no son nada nuevo; toda su vida ha tenido problemas de tartamudez y, en sus propias palabras, era una “máquina de desatinos”, mucho antes de tener acceso a las prestaciones de jubilación. Sus asesores afirman que su criterio sigue siendo tan bueno como siempre. Así que muchos usan la frase “afilado como una hacha” para describirlo, lo que se ha convertido en una especie de mantra.Biden dice que la edad es un tema válido, pero sostiene que su longevidad es una ventaja y no una desventaja. “¿Ustedes dicen que soy anciano?”, dijo en una cena de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca en abril. “Yo digo que soy sabio”.Sin embargo, pocas personas dejan de notar los cambios en una de las personas más públicas de la nación. Hace una decena de años, cuando era vicepresidente, Biden se enzarzaba cada verano en enérgicas batallas con pistolas de agua con los hijos de sus colaboradores y los periodistas. Más de una década después, cruzó con paso rígido el puente Edmund Pettus de Selma, Alabama, para conmemorar el aniversario del Domingo Sangriento.Las encuestas indican que a los estadounidenses, incluso a los demócratas, les preocupa muchísimo la edad de Biden. En un grupo de debate reciente organizado por The New York Times, varios electores que apoyaron a Biden en 2020 manifestaron su preocupación y uno afirmó: “He visto a veces esa mirada ausente cuando está pronunciando algún discurso o dirigiéndose a la multitud. Parece como si perdiera la línea de pensamiento”.En los círculos demócratas, el malestar por la edad de Biden es generalizado. Un destacado demócrata de Wall Street, que como otras personas habló con la condición de mantener su anonimato para no ofender a la Casa Blanca, señaló que entre los donantes del partido no se hablaba de otra cosa. En una pequeña cena celebrada a principios de este año con antiguos senadores y gobernadores demócratas, todos de la generación de Biden, los asistentes coincidieron en que era demasiado mayor para volver a postularse. Los líderes locales llaman a menudo a la Casa Blanca para preguntar por su salud.En privado, los funcionarios reconocen que hacen lo que consideran que son ajustes razonables para no exigirle mucho físicamente a un presidente que envejece. Su personal programa la mayor parte de sus presentaciones en público entre el mediodía y las 4 p. m. y lo deja descansar los fines de semana tanto como es posible. Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, jefa adjunta de gabinete de la Casa Blanca, insistió en que su edad no ha obligado a modificar su agenda. “Nada más allá de lo que se hace para cualquier presidente, independientemente de su edad”, dijo.Un análisis de los horarios de Biden con base en la información recabada por Axios y ampliada por el Times reveló que el mandatario tiene un ritmo de trabajo matutino parecido al del presidente para el que trabajó, Barack Obama, quien tampoco tenía muchos eventos públicos antes de las 10 a. m.: solo el 4 por ciento durante su último año en el cargo en comparación con el 5 por ciento en los primeros dos años y medio de Biden en la presidencia. Pero la verdadera diferencia se ve en la noche. Obama tenía casi el doble de probabilidades que Biden de acudir a eventos públicos después de las 6 p. m., el 17 contra el 9 por ciento.Los asesores evitan exponer a Biden a entrevistas con los medios cuando es posible que cometa algún error que lo perjudique políticamente. Biden solo ha brindado una cuarta parte de las entrevistas que dio Donald Trump en el mismo periodo y una quinta parte de las que concedió Obama, pero ninguna a los reporteros de algún diario importante. Biden no ha concedido entrevistas al departamento de noticias del Times, a diferencia de todos los presidentes desde por lo menos Franklin D. Roosevelt además de Dwight D. Eisenhower. Y en los últimos 100 años, solo Ronald Reagan y Richard Nixon dieron tan pocas conferencias de prensa.A diferencia de otros presidentes, los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca no han autorizado al médico de Biden para que conceda entrevistas. En febrero, Kevin C. O’Connor, el médico de la Casa Blanca, emitió una carta de cinco páginas en la que afirmaba que el mandatario está “apto para el servicio y ejecuta plenamente todas sus responsabilidades sin exenciones ni adaptaciones”.Pero también escribió que la tendencia del presidente a caminar rígido es “de hecho el resultado de cambios degenerativos (‘desgaste’)” en su columna vertebral, y en parte el resultado de “isquiotibiales y pantorrillas más tensas”. La carta decía que “no había hallazgos que fueran consistentes con” un trastorno neurológico como un derrame cerebral, esclerosis múltiple o enfermedad de Parkinson. Toma medicamentos para la fibrilación auricular, el colesterol, el ardor de estómago, el asma y las alergias.Al igual que muchas personas de su edad, Biden repite las frases y vuelve a contar una y otra vez las mismas anécdotas viejas que a menudo son de veracidad cuestionable. También puede ser estrafalario; cuando lo visitan los niños, es posible que saque al azar un libro de William Butler Yeats de su escritorio y comience a leerles poesía irlandesa.Al mismo tiempo, es elegante y está en forma, hace ejercicio cinco veces a la semana y no bebe. En algunas ocasiones, ha mostrado una resistencia asombrosa, como cuando fue a Polonia y luego emprendió un viaje de nueve horas en tren para hacer una visita secreta a Kiev, la capital de Ucrania, donde estuvo varias horas en tierra. Luego soportó otras nueve horas en tren y tomó un vuelo a Varsovia. Un análisis de su horario proporcionado por sus colaboradores muestra que en los primeros meses de su tercer año en la presidencia viajó un poco más que Obama en ese mismo periodo.El viaje de Biden a Kiev, en el que se reunió con el presidente de Ucrania, Volodímir Zelenski, requirió una agenda ininterrumpida.Daniel Berehulak/The New York Times“¿Que divaga? Así es”, señaló el gobernador de Nueva Jersey, Phil Murphy, un demócrata que rechaza categóricamente la idea de que Biden sea demasiado mayor para ser presidente. “¿Siempre ha divagado? Sí, así es. En público y en privado. Siempre es el mismo. Literalmente —y no lo digo a la ligera— en mi vida no he conocido a nadie más que sea tanto la misma persona en público como en privado”.El hecho de que se le preste tanta atención a su edad es algo que les molesta a algunos de sus amigos. “Creo que la razón por la que esto es un problema es principalmente porque los medios de comunicación hablan de ello constantemente”, dijo Ted Kaufman, exsenador por Delaware que desde hace mucho tiempo es asesor de Biden. “En mi trato con él no veo nada que demuestre que la edad sea un problema. Ha hecho más de lo que ningún presidente ha podido hacer en toda mi vida”.Andrew Bates, portavoz de la Casa Blanca, señaló que los republicanos de línea dura se quejaban de que Biden había derrotado a McCarthy en el acuerdo fiscal. “Es revelador que los mismos congresistas extremistas que han estado hablando de su edad se quejaran esta semana de que fue más listo que ellos en el acuerdo presupuestario”, dijo Bates.Desde luego que el tema de la edad de Biden no viene aislado. Trump, su contrincante republicano más probable, solo es cuatro años menor y era el presidente más viejo de la historia antes de que Biden lo sucediera. Si Trump gana el próximo año, tendría 82 años al finalizar su presidencia, mayor de lo que será Biden al final de este mandato.Mientras estuvo en el cargo, Trump generó preocupación acerca de su agudeza mental y su condición física. No hacía ejercicio, su dieta consistía principalmente en hamburguesas con queso y carne, y oficialmente pesaba 110 kilos, peso que, para su estatura, ya se considera obesidad.Después de quejarse de que tenía demasiadas reuniones en las mañanas, Trump dejó de llegar al Despacho Oval antes de las 11 u 11:30 a. m. todos los días para quedarse en su residencia a ver la televisión, hacer llamadas telefónicas o enviar tuits iracundos. Durante una presentación en la Academia Militar de Estados Unidos en West Point, tuvo problemas para levantar un vaso de agua y parece que le costó trabajo bajar por una sencilla rampa.Más sorprendente era el rendimiento cognitivo de Trump. Era errático y tendía a divagar; los expertos constataron que había perdido elocuencia y que su vocabulario se había reducido desde su juventud. En privado, sus colaboradores decían que Trump tenía problemas para procesar la información y distinguir la realidad de la ficción. Su segundo jefe de gabinete, John F. Kelly, compró un libro que analizaba la salud psicológica de Trump para entenderle mejor, y varios secretarios del gabinete, preocupados por su posible incapacidad mental, se plantearon invocar la Enmienda 25 para destituirlo.En la opinión pública, los problemas cognitivos del expresidente Donald Trump no se asocian tan a menudo con la edad como los de Biden, quizá porque el estilo ampuloso de Trump proyecta energía.Doug Mills/The New York TimesPero quizá porque su estilo ampuloso transmite energía, los problemas de Trump no se asocian tanto con la edad, en la mente del público, como los de Biden. En una encuesta reciente de Reuters/Ipsos, el 73 por ciento dijo que Biden es demasiado mayor para ser presidente, frente al 51 por ciento que dijo lo mismo de Trump.Biden gestiona su jornada con más disciplina que su predecesor. Jill Biden, que da clases en el Northern Virginia Community College, se levanta alrededor de las 6 a. m., mientras que el presidente se despierta una hora más tarde, según lo que suele decir. Biden le ha dicho a sus colaboradores que, a veces, su gato lo despierta en mitad de la noche cuando camina sobre su cara.A las 7:20 a. m. la primera dama se va a trabajar. El mandatario hace ejercicio a las 8 a. m.; tiene una bicicleta Peloton en la residencia y es conocido por ver programas como Morning Joe en MSNBC. Llega al Despacho Oval a las 9 a. m. para tener una mañana por lo general repleta de reuniones. Para comer, alterna entre ensaladas, sopas y sándwiches.Biden hace ejercicio cinco días a la semana y no bebe.Al Drago para The New York TimesTras los eventos de la tarde, el presidente regresa a la residencia a eso de las 6:45 p. m. Para cenar, su platillo favorito es la pasta. De hecho, según un antiguo funcionario, siempre que viaja, sus ayudantes se aseguran de que haya salsa roja a mano para la pasta con la que termina el día, incluso cuando suele rechazar el salmón que su esposa insiste en que coma.A partir de las 8:00 p. m., los Biden suelen leer juntos sus libros e informes en el salón de la residencia. La primera dama suele acostarse a las 10:30 p. m. y el presidente media hora más tarde.Sus colaboradores dicen que, por las preguntas que hace después, está claro que él lee los informes. “No hay nadie mejor a la hora de hacer preguntas para llegar al fondo de un asunto, para detectar una vaguedad o hacer preguntas difíciles”, dijo Stefanie Feldman, secretaria de personal de la Casa Blanca. “Hace preguntas igual de difíciles que hace 10 años”.Algunos de los que le acompañan en el extranjero expresan su asombro por su capacidad para mantener el ritmo. Cuando la nueva líder de Italia presionó para que se celebrara una reunión mientras el presidente estaba en Polonia, éste accedió de buena gana y la añadió a su agenda que estaba repleta. Durante un viaje a Irlanda, las personas que le acompañaban dijeron que estaba lleno de energía y que quería hablar largo y tendido en el Air Force One en vez de descansar.Sin embargo, tras agotadoras jornadas en sus viajes, faltó a cenas con líderes mundiales en Indonesia el año pasado y de nuevo en Japón cuando fue de visita en mayo. Algunas personas que lo conocen desde hace años dicen en privado que han notado pequeños cambios. Según un exfuncionario, cuando se sienta suele apoyar una mano en el escritorio para sostener su peso y rara vez vuelve a levantarse con su antigua energía.El personal de Biden programa la mayoría de sus apariciones públicas entre el mediodía y las 4  p. m. y, en la medida de lo posible, le libera los fines de semana.Doug Mills/The New York TimesHabla tan bajo que resulta difícil oírle. Para los discursos, sus ayudantes le dan un micrófono de mano que se acerca a la boca para amplificar su voz, incluso cuando está ante un atril con micrófonos.Biden y Jill Biden, su esposa, suelen tener un horario similar.Doug Mills/The New York TimesSin embargo, sus colaboradores dicen que, aunque puede olvidar momentáneamente un nombre o un hecho, conserva una formidable memoria para los detalles. Cuando se disponía a viajar a Shanksville, Pensilvania, en el vigésimo aniversario de los atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001, se sintió frustrado porque los funcionarios le habían dado un plan equivocado para sus desplazamientos. Ya había estado en el monumento conmemorativo y sabía que el plan no tenía sentido porque recordaba la disposición del terreno.Funcionarios de la Casa Blanca se quejan de que la preocupación por la edad se ve exagerada por las fotos de internet, que a veces son falsas o están muy distorsionadas. Cada semana, los estrategas realizan un análisis de la nube de palabras con un panel de votantes preguntándoles qué habían oído sobre el presidente, bueno o malo. Después de que el año pasado se le enganchara el pie en el pedal de la bicicleta y diera una voltereta, durante semanas las palabras de la nube fueron “caída de la bicicleta”, lo que resultaba aún más frustrante para los asesores que señalaban que Trump apenas parecía capaz de montar en bicicleta.Últimamente, Biden ha recurrido al humor autocrítico para atenuar el asunto, al igual que lo hizo Reagan en su reelección de 1984, la cual ganó a los 73 años gracias, en parte, a una oportuna broma durante el debate acerca de no aprovecharse de “la juventud e inexperiencia del oponente”.Algunos de los que le acompañan en el extranjero expresan su asombro por su capacidad para mantener el ritmo. Sin embargo, tras agotadoras jornadas en sus viajes del año pasado, faltó a cenas con líderes mundiales en Indonesia y eso también le pasó cuando estuvo en Japón en mayo.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEn la cena de los corresponsales, Biden aseguró al público que respaldaba la primera enmienda y “no solo porque la redactó mi buen amigo Jimmy Madison”, en referencia al político del siglo XIX. Durante el evento del Día de Llevar a Tu Hijo al Trabajo, reflexionó acerca de “cuando yo era más joven, hace como unos 120 años”.Asimismo, hace algunos días, en la Academia de la Fuerza Aérea, Biden bromeó al decir “cuando iba a graduarme del bachillerato hace 300 años, hice mi solicitud para entrar a la Academia Naval”. Después de tropezar con el saco de arena, también trató de tomárselo a broma. “Me metieron el pie”, dijo.Peter Baker es el corresponsal jefe de la Casa Blanca y ha cubierto a los últimos cinco presidentes para el Times y The Washington Post. Es autor de siete libros, el más reciente The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, con Susan Glasser. @peterbakernyt • FacebookMichael D. Shear es un corresponsal experimentado de la Casa Blanca y dos veces ganador del Premio Pulitzer que también formó parte del equipo que ganó la Medalla de Servicio Público por la cobertura de la COVID-19 en 2020. Es coautor de Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault on Immigration. @shearmKatie Rogers es corresponsal de la Casa Blanca y cubre la administración Biden, la cultura de Washington y la política interna. Se unió al Times en 2014. @katierogersZolan Kanno-Youngs es corresponsal en la Casa Blanca y cubre una variedad de temas nacionales e internacionales en la gestión de Biden, incluida la seguridad nacional y el extremismo. Se unió al Times en 2019 como corresponsal de seguridad nacional. @KannoYoungs More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Pence’s Campaign Against Donald Trump Has Already Made History

      by

      In running for the Republican nomination against Donald J. Trump, Mike Pence will be the first vice president to directly challenge the president who originally put him on the ticket.He may not make it to the Oval Office. But he will make it into the history books, at least as an asterisk.As Mike Pence formally kicks off his underdog campaign for the White House on Wednesday, he will become something almost unheard-of since the founding of the republic — a former vice president running against the president who originally put him on the ticket.While it is not unusual for tension and even enmity to develop between presidents and vice presidents, never before has a No. 2 mounted a direct challenge to a onetime running mate in the way that Mr. Pence is taking on former President Donald J. Trump for the Republican nomination next year.Vice presidents, after all, typically owe their national stature to the presidents who chose them, and even if they are not especially grateful, they rarely find it politically feasible to compete with their patrons. But Mr. Pence is gambling that Republican primary voters may eventually grow weary of Mr. Trump and turn to the other member of their party’s 2016 and 2020 tickets.“Having a former vice president contest the president he served for their party’s nomination in contested primaries is like a 234-year flood,” said Joel K. Goldstein, a specialist on the vice presidency at the St. Louis University School of Law. “It doesn’t happen.”“Defeated presidents don’t run again in modern times,” he added, “and vice presidents tend to inherit support from their administration’s supporters, not become pariahs to them” as Mr. Pence has since defying Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The broken relationship between Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence is itself a historical anomaly, of course. Mr. Trump sought to pressure Mr. Pence to claim the power to effectively reject Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the Electoral College, a power the vice president said he did not have. Mr. Trump was so angry that he publicly excoriated his own vice president, prompting a mob to hunt for him while chanting “hang Mike Pence” on Jan. 6, 2021. According to testimony, Mr. Trump suggested to aides that maybe his supporters were right.“The reason why no other vice president appears to have run against his president is that he was selected by the president, and there is almost always a personal bond stemming from a sense of loyalty and gratitude,” said Richard Moe, who was the chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale. “I can’t think of another vice president who was treated more disrespectfully than Pence was by Trump.”There are no precise parallels to the current situation. In 1800, Vice President Thomas Jefferson challenged President John Adams, defeating the incumbent’s bid for a second term. In those early days of the republic, however, the vice president was not the president’s running mate, but the second-highest vote recipient in the previous election. Adams and Jefferson had run against each other in 1796, with Adams prevailing and Jefferson becoming vice president because he was the runner-up.The 12th Amendment ratified in 1804 changed that system so that the vice president was chosen in tandem with the president as part of the same ticket. That did not mean they were always on the same team. Many tickets have been forged between rivals who had just run against each other for the nomination, including John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in 1980 and Barack Obama and Mr. Biden in 2008.The broken relationship between Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence is a historical anomaly. Doug Mills/The New York TimesSome vice presidents grew hostile to the presidents they served under, as when John C. Calhoun openly opposed Andrew Jackson during the nullification crisis pitting South Carolina against Washington over a tariff. After being dumped from the re-election ticket in 1832, Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to take a seat in the Senate to resist his former ticket mate’s agenda. Still, Calhoun never challenged Jackson as a candidate.In 1916, former President Theodore Roosevelt and his onetime vice president Charles W. Fairbanks both drew support on the opening ballots at the Republican convention but were not actively campaigning against each other. Hubert Humphrey and his 1968 running mate Edmund Muskie both ran in 1972 for the Democratic nomination, neither successfully. In 2000, former Vice President Dan Quayle ran against George W. Bush, the son of the man who put Mr. Quayle on the 1988 and 1992 tickets.But the closest the country has previously come to a direct contest between running mates was in 1940 when Vice President John Nance Garner, a conservative Texan known as Cactus Jack and no fan of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, waged a campaign for the White House.Garner was known for his love of whiskey, once noting that “I don’t get drunk but once a day.” He is most famous today for his sour assessment of the vice presidency, which he declared not “worth a bucket of warm spit,” or some variation of that.Since no president to that point had run for a third consecutive term owing to the precedent set by George Washington, it was not entirely clear that Roosevelt would be a candidate in 1940, and he made no move to stop Garner or other associates from running. Still, there was no love lost between the two. “I see that the vice president has thrown his bottle — I mean his hat — into the ring,” Roosevelt quipped to his cabinet.Garner, a traditionalist, had fallen out with F.D.R. over the president’s effort to pack the Supreme Court and opposed breaking Washington’s precedent. “As retribution, he declared that he would run for the 1940 presidential nomination, but he never put his heart into it, and no one took his candidacy seriously,” said Mr. Moe, who wrote “Roosevelt’s Second Act,” a book about the 1940 race.Roosevelt played coy all the way up to the Democratic convention, when he finally arranged to be “drafted” to run again. Roosevelt swept to the nomination with 946 delegates. Garner finished third with 61.That election ushered in another change. Until that point, the parties generally chose the vice-presidential candidates, but from then on the nominees effectively took over that decision. Roosevelt picked Henry A. Wallace, leaving Garner to retire to his Texas ranch.At this point, Mr. Trump may regret the choice he made in 2016. But it is not clear that Mr. Pence will do any better than Cactus Jack did. More