Subterms
The Candidates Biden Kennedy Jr. Williamson Hutchinson Pence Ramaswamy Suarez Did not respond to questions. Burgum Did not respond to questions. Christie Did not respond to questions. DeSantis Did not respond to questions. Haley Did not respond to questions. Hurd Did not respond to questions. Scott Did not respond to questions. Trump More
Joe Biden is an unpopular president, and without some recovery, he could easily lose to Donald Trump in 2024.By itself, this is no great wonder: His two predecessors were also unpopular at this stage of their presidencies, also endangered in their re-election bids.But with Trump and Barack Obama, there were reasonably simple explanations. For Obama, it was the unemployment rate, 9.1 percent in September 2011, and the bruising battles over Obamacare. For Trump, it was the fact that he had never been popular, making bad approval ratings his presidency’s natural default.For Biden, though, there was a normal honeymoon, months of reasonably high approval ratings that ended only with the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. And since then, it’s been hard to distill a singular explanation for what’s kept his numbers lousy.The economy is better than in Obama’s first term, inflation is ebbing, and the feared recession hasn’t materialized. The woke wars and Covid battles that disadvantaged Democrats are no longer central, and the post-Roe culture wars seem like friendlier terrain. Biden’s foreign policy team has defended Ukraine without (so far) a dangerous escalation with the Russians, and Biden has even delivered legislative bipartisanship, co-opting Trumpian promises about industrial policy along the way.This has created mystification among Democratic partisans as to why all this isn’t enough to give the president a decent polling lead. I don’t share that mystification. But I do think there’s real uncertainty about which of the forces dragging on Biden’s approval ratings matter most.Start with the theory that Biden’s troubles are mostly still about inflation — that people just hate rising prices and he isn’t credited with avoiding a recession because wage increases have been eaten up by inflation until recently.If this is the master issue, then the White House doesn’t have many options beyond patience. The administration’s original inflationary sin, the overspending in the American Rescue Plan Act, isn’t going to be repeated, and apart from the possibility of an armistice in Ukraine relieving some pressure on gas prices, there aren’t a lot of policy levers to pull. The hope has to be that inflation continues to drift down, real wages rise consistently and in November 2024, Biden gets the economic credit he isn’t getting now.But maybe it’s not just the economy. Across multiple polls, Biden seems to be losing support from minority voters, continuing a Trump-era trend. This raises the possibility that there’s a social-issues undertow for Democrats, in which even when wokeness isn’t front and center, the fact that the party’s activist core is so far left gradually pushes culturally conservative African Americans and Hispanics toward the G.O.P. — much as culturally conservative white Democrats drifted slowly into the Republican coalition between the 1960s and the 2000s.Bill Clinton temporarily arrested that rightward drift by deliberately picking public fights with factions to his left. But this has not been Biden’s strategy. He’s moved somewhat rightward on issues like immigration, in which progressivism’s policy vision hit the rocks. But he doesn’t make a big deal about his differences with his progressive flank. I don’t expect that to change — but it might be costing him in ways somewhat invisible to liberals at the moment.Or maybe the big problem is just simmering anxiety about Biden’s age. Maybe his poll numbers dipped first in the Afghanistan crisis because it showcased the public absenteeism that often characterizes his presidency. Maybe some voters now just assume that a vote for Biden is a vote for the hapless Kamala Harris. Maybe there’s just a vigor premium in presidential campaigns that gives Trump an advantage.In which case a different leader with the same policies might be more popular. Lacking any way to elevate such a leader, however, all Democrats can do is ask Biden to show more public vigor, with all the risks that may entail.But this is at least a strategy, of sorts. The hardest problem for the incumbent to address may be the pall of private depression and general pessimism hanging over Americans, especially younger Americans, which has been worsened by Covid but seems rooted in deeper social trends.I don’t see any obvious way for Biden to address this issue through normal presidential positioning. I would not recommend updating Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech with the therapy-speak of contemporary progressivism. I also don’t think the president is suited to be a crusader against digital derangement or a herald of religious revival.Biden got elected, in part, by casting himself as a transitional figure, a bridge to a more youthful and optimistic future. Now he needs some general belief in that brighter future to help carry him to re-election.But wherever Americans might find such optimism, we are probably well past the point that a decrepit-seeming president can hope to generate it himself.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
A rare statement released jointly from groups representing nearly a century of presidents stresses the importance of the pillars of democracy and civility in politics.A coalition representing nearly every former president from Herbert Hoover to Barack Obama issued a collective call on Thursday to protect the foundations of American democracy and maintain civility in the nation’s politics.The alliance of presidential centers and foundations for U.S. leaders dating back nearly a century, both Democrats and Republicans, is a historic first. Never before has such a broad coalition of legacy institutions from former administrations joined together on a single issue.The statement is largely anodyne in its prose and is careful not to include specific examples that could seem to refer to a current or a former elected leader. But some of its wording, and its timing, appear to serve as a subtle rebuke of former President Donald J. Trump, who tried to overturn the last presidential election, continues to deny he lost and is now the Republican front-runner for 2024, even as he faces four criminal indictments.“Each of us has a role to play and responsibilities to uphold,” the statement says. “Our elected officials must lead by example and govern effectively in ways that deliver for the American people. This, in turn, will help to restore trust in public service. The rest of us must engage in civil dialogue; respect democratic institutions and rights; uphold safe, secure and accessible elections; and contribute to local, state or national improvement.”The Eisenhower Foundation was the only organization in the lineage of presidents from Mr. Hoover to Mr. Obama to not sign the statement, and the organization did not detail its reasoning. No centers, libraries or legacy-type organizations with ties to Mr. Trump signed the statement; the former president does not have a foundation or library.The idea originated at the George W. Bush Presidential Center earlier this year, according to David J. Kramer, the executive director of the George W. Bush Institute. Leadership at the center drafted the original statement and asked the others to sign on; a few centers offered small edits.“We just felt that there was a growing need to step back from the day-to-day headlines and, amid all the attention, remind ourselves of who we are, what makes us a great nation and that we’re rooted in an idea of freedom and democracy,” Mr. Kramer said in an interview.“It’s not about an individual, it’s not about one candidate or campaign,” Mr. Kramer added. “We just wanted to sort of stay at a higher level, and that’s how we were able to get pretty much all the centers united behind us.”But some of the language in the statement could easily be read as warnings about Mr. Trump. The coalition says that “civility and respect in political discourse” are “essential,” a contrast for a politician known for demeaning nicknames and occasionally violent messaging.Other ideals expressed in the statement, such as a sense of global responsibility, also seem targeted more toward the Republican base, voters who are more energized by “America First” messaging — a theme pressed by Mr. Trump and repeated by many of his rivals for the Republican nomination.“Americans have a strong interest in supporting democratic movements and respect for human rights around the world because free societies elsewhere contribute to our own security and prosperity here at home,” the statement reads. “But that interest is undermined when others see our own house in disarray. The world will not wait for us to address our problems, so we must both continue to strive toward a more perfect union and help those abroad looking for U.S. leadership.”Presidential historians note that the joint statement is unusual.“You see former presidents typically attending events together, such as, for example, after the passing of former President George H.W. Bush,” said Meena Bose, a presidential historian and an executive dean at Hofstra University. “But to have the centers unite, this institutionalizes the significance of bipartisan commitment.” She added, “It gives both personal and institutional force to the statement.”Mr. Kramer said the idea had been percolating around the Bush Center for a while. However, when he joined the center in January, momentum grew within the organization to put out a bipartisan and nonpartisan message reaffirming what distinguishes American democracy and has helped it function for more than 245 years, he added.Valerie Jarrett, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama and the chief executive of the Obama Foundation, pointed to the caustic political discourse dominating modern campaigns, saying a unified front was essential.“There is a toxicity to the climate right now that is inconsistent with a strong democracy,” Ms. Jarrett said in an interview. “Open and fair elections, smooth and orderly transition of power, observance of the rule of law: These are foundational pillars of democracy. And so if you had asked me 10 years ago, Would we be really focusing our effort on ensuring that our democracy is strong? A lot of the activities that we do are designed to strengthen it, but we wouldn’t have called it out as an issue that’s under attack.”Meredith Sleichter, the executive director of the Eisenhower Foundation, said in a statement that the organization “respectfully declined to sign this statement. It would be the first common statement that the presidential centers and foundations have ever issued as a group, but we have had no collective discussion about it, only an invitation to sign.”The full list of signatories:The Obama FoundationGeorge W. Bush Presidential CenterClinton Presidential CenterGeorge & Barbara Bush FoundationThe Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and InstituteThe Carter CenterGerald R. Ford Presidential FoundationRichard Nixon FoundationLBJ FoundationJohn F. Kennedy Library FoundationTruman Library InstituteRoosevelt InstituteThe Hoover Presidential Foundation More
Unemployment is near historic lows, and inflation has come way down. We are inflicting a strategic humiliation on Russia by arming Ukraine without putting American forces at risk. The homicide rate fell by about 10 percent across 30 cities compared with last year. Democrats defied electoral trends by holding the Senate, scoring major legislative victories and easily confirming a Supreme Court nominee.Why, then, do only 20 percent of voters rate the economy as “excellent” or “good,” versus 49 percent who call it “poor,” according to a New York Times/Siena poll? Why are Americans overwhelmingly pessimistic about the country’s future, according to the Pew Research Center? Why does Gallup find a significantly smaller percentage of Americans have confidence in the presidency today than they did in the last, disastrous year of Donald Trump’s tenure? And why is President Biden polling dead even with his predecessor in multiple surveys despite the former president’s 91 felony charges?In short, with everything so great, why are people so down? That’s a question that, as The Times’s Reid Epstein wrote last week, stumps the White House and its political allies, who seem to think the problem is a failure to communicate all the good news.But there’s another explanation: The news isn’t all that good. Americans are unsettled by things that are not always visible in headlines or statistics but are easy enough to see.Easy to see is the average price of a dozen eggs: up 38 percent between January 2022 and May of this year. And white bread: up 25 percent. And a whole chicken: up 18 percent. As for the retail price of gasoline, it’s up 63 percent since January 2021, the month Biden became president.Yet none of these increases make it into what economists call the core rate of inflation, which excludes food and energy. The inflation ordinary people experience in everyday life is not the one the government prefers to highlight.Easy to see is the frequent collapse of public order on American streets. In April hundreds of teenagers wreaked havoc in the Chicago Loop. Two boys were shot. A young couple was beaten by the doorway of a building on North Wabash. Yet only 16 people were arrested. Similar scenes unfolded last month in New York’s Union Square and again in Boston, where police officers were assaulted in two separate riots largely by juveniles.In New York, there were at least 66 arrests. In Boston, just 13.Easy to see is that the kids are not alright. The causes are many; social media companies have a lot to answer for. But so do teachers’ unions, handmaids of the Democratic Party, who pushed to keep school doors closed during the pandemic, helping themselves while doing lasting harm to children. The Biden administration spent much of its early months saying it wanted more than half of schools open at least one day per week by the 100th day of his presidency.“It is a goal so modest and lacking in ambition as to be almost meaningless,” Politico’s Playbook newsletter noted at the time.Easy to see is that the border crisis has become a national one. In May the administration boasted that new policies had contributed to a sharp decline in the “number of encounters” between border patrols and migrants crossing the southwestern border illegally. By August, arrests of migrants who crossed the border with family members had hit a monthly record of 91,000. In New York City alone, more than 57,000 migrants seek food and shelter from the city’s social services on an average night.Nobody can say for certain how many migrants who crossed the border during Biden’s presidency remain in the U.S., but it’s almost certainly in the millions. In 2021 the president dismissed the initial surge of migrants as merely seasonal. “Happens every year,” he said.Easy to see is that the world has gotten more dangerous under Biden’s watch. The president deserves credit for arming Ukraine, as he does for brokering a strategic rapprochement between Japan and South Korea. But he also deserves the blame for a humiliating Afghanistan withdrawal that almost surely played a part in enticing Vladimir Putin into launching his invasion of Ukraine and whetted Beijing’s appetite for Taiwan.How large a part is unquantifiable. Yet it was predictable — and predicted.Easy to see is that the president is not young for his age. The stiff gait and the occasional falls. The apparent dozing off. The times he draws a blank or struggles to complete a thought. Yet the same people yelling #ResignFeinstein or #ResignMcConnell don’t appear to be especially vocal when it comes to the president’s fitness, as if noting the obvious risks repeating a Republican talking point.But people notice, and they vote.Easy to see are tents under overpasses, from the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in New York to the I-5 in Seattle. And the zombified addicts passed out on sidewalks in practically every city and town. And the pharmacies with everyday items under lock and key to prevent shoplifting. And women with infants strapped to their backs, hawking candy or gum at busy intersections. And news reports of brazen car thefts, which have skyrocketed this year.“There is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” Adam Smith said. Not all the ruin mentioned above is Biden’s fault, and none of it is irreversible. But there’s much more ruin than his apologists — blinkered by selective statistics and too confident about the president’s chances next year — care to admit.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
More from our inbox:Clarence Thomas’s EthicsPolitical NovicesDon’t Kill the LanternfliesIgnoring the Truth About Trump Karlotta FreierTo the Editor:Re “Life After Loss Is Awful. I Need to Believe It’s Also Beautiful,” by Sarah Wildman (Opinion, Aug. 27):I just read your essay, Ms. Wildman, about your daughter Orli, and I know everything you are saying and am crying with you and for you and for myself.I know what it is to look for your child everywhere, in a rainstorm, in trees and butterflies. I even looked for my son, Jack, in an exhibit of Goya paintings, seeing him in a young man of about his age and size, even though the clothes and setting were of another era.I used to pretend, as long as I could, that the person coming toward me on the trail near our house was Jack. When I hugged his friends, I’d pretend I was hugging him. Unlike you, we lost Jack suddenly, and we had him for what I think of as a third of a life, 26 years. He died skiing in an avalanche in Montana in 1999, almost as long ago as he got to live.That longing ache, the feeling of having failed him, that I should have tamped down his physical daring — I know those too. I am so sorry for your loss that nothing can make go away.We used to say: “We’ve been really good and grieved well. Can we have him back now?” I guess we were saying it to the universe.Bonnie GilliomChapel Hill, N.C.To the Editor:There is overwhelming grace and dignity to this piece and to its earlier companion in the aftermath of Sarah Wildman’s daughter’s death (“My Daughter’s Future Was Taken From Her, and From Us,” May 21).A palpable cascading sadness and grief, resting side by side with a longing to remain attached to what was beautiful in Orli’s universe and what remains so even now that she has passed. Two universes colliding, a mother trying to reconcile these impossibly irreconcilable differences.I am thankful that Ms. Wildman has allowed us into her world. That she has given us permission to see and feel what such devastating loss looks like, how it manifests itself, how to try to manage it even as it cannot be managed.There can be no greater pain, no greater loss than that of watching a child slip through one’s grasp as you try desperately to hold on. But Orli will remain forever present through the words of her mother.And though she may no longer be able to protect her daughter, Ms. Wildman has been able to preserve her and her memory. It is a mother’s last loving gift to her wonderful child.Robert S. NussbaumFort Lee, N.J.To the Editor:I have finished reading Sarah Wildman’s essays on the loss of her daughter. I too have lost a child, although he was 42 years old. I still weep at times that have no connection to losing him. He was my “baby,” and there are days when I can still feel his presence even though he died almost six years ago.Ms. Wildman’s articulation of the grief as ever-changing but everlasting was heartbreaking, but consoling as well. Just knowing that other parents have felt the soul-wrenching pain of this awful loss and continue on with their lives as I have feels like a warm hug.I don’t ever have to end this grieving of my loss. I can allow the memories I hold of him to live with me. I often want to tell family and friends that talking about my son doesn’t have to be off limits. Remembering him for the loving, sensitive and funny person he was is a way to honor and celebrate his memory.Patricia KoulepisPhoenix, Md.Clarence Thomas’s EthicsJustice Clarence Thomas had requested a 90-day extension for his financial disclosures.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Thomas Defends His Private Trips With Billionaire” (front page, Sept. 1):Justice and ethics both require adherence to what is morally right. In his flagrant disregard for such principles, Justice Clarence Thomas has done irreparable harm to a once respected institution.The Supreme Court may never regain the public trust it once held, but Chief Justice John Roberts could make a small beginning by urging Justice Thomas to resign. The perks that Justice Thomas and his wife, Virginia, have already enjoyed should be enough for a lifetime.He could do a great service to history and to his own legacy by doing the just, ethical and statesmanlike thing: a graceful resignation in the interest of the court and the country.Fran Moreland JohnsSan FranciscoThe writer is an author and activist.Political NovicesWhen asked about some past comments, Vivek Ramaswamy has denied ever making them or claimed to have been misquoted, even as those denials have been refuted.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Ramaswamy’s Repeated Aversion to the Facts Mirrors Trump’s Pattern” (news article, Aug. 31):The idea has taken hold that a person with no government experience, particularly a successful businessman, can be president. You wouldn’t want a neophyte to remove your gallbladder or give you a haircut, but apparently a lot of people feel differently about picking a president.Donald Trump — with no legislative, foreign policy or executive branch experience, little knowledge of history or government, and little understanding of the powers of the president — was elected and is still wildly popular with his party.What Donald Trump taught us is that the skill and experience it takes to become president, to get the job, and the skill and experience it takes to be president, to do the job, are not the same. It isn’t that they are not exactly the same; it is that they are totally different. The Venn diagram circles, Mr. Trump has taught us, do not intersect. He has also taught us that the second skill doesn’t have to be on your résumé to get the job.At least one person, Vivek Ramaswamy, has learned this lesson. If this works, it is democracy’s Achilles’ heel.Clem BerneSouth Salem, N.Y.Don’t Kill the LanternfliesEncouraging the public to kill spotted lanternflies can help raise awareness of the problem while scientists seek a lasting solution, experts said. These lanternflies were flattened by a photographer.Ali Cherkis for The New York TimesTo the Editor:New York City’s lanternfly bloodsport is sending our children the wrong message. “Swatting and Stomping in a Lanternfly Summer” (news article, Sept. 3) encourages us to continue the killing despite its obvious futility.First, it’s absurd to think that we can control the pest population one stomp at a time. Second, you don’t have to be a follower of ahimsa (the ancient Indian principle of nonviolence) to see that encouraging our children to destroy a life is problematic, even, or especially, a small and annoying one. Third, it teaches our children that the lanternfly is the problem while ignoring the root problem: us.Humanity’s sprawling globalization, ignoring its effects on nature, created the pest by introducing it into a new environment. Perhaps a better lesson for our children would be to point out the lanternfly as an unintended consequence of human practices and to teach them to be a better steward of our planet than we were.Ari GreenbaumTeaneck, N.J.Ignoring the Truth About TrumpTo the Editor:Remember when we were kids and someone was going to say something that we didn’t want to hear? We’d stick our fingers into our ears or make a lot of noise to drown out the anticipated comment.Isn’t this essentially what Matt Gaetz and other Republicans are doing in their proposal to defund Jack Smith’s investigation of former President Donald Trump?Yeah, growing up can be hard. We often hear things we’d prefer to remain ignorant of. For some, ignorance is still bliss.Robert SelverstoneWestport, Conn. More
On Monday, Mark Meadows, a former White House chief of staff, testified in an effort to move the Georgia racketeering case against his former boss Donald Trump and co-defendants to federal court. On the stand, he said that he believed his actions regarding the 2020 election fell within the scope of his job as a federal official.The courts will sort out his legal fate in this and other matters. If convicted and sentenced to prison, Mr. Meadows would be the second White House chief of staff, after Richard Nixon’s infamous H.R. Haldeman, to serve jail time.But as a cautionary tale for American democracy and the conduct of its executive branch, Mr. Meadows is in a league of his own. By the standards of previous chiefs of staff, he was a uniquely dangerous failure — and he embodies a warning about the perils of a potential second Trump term.Historically, a White House chief of staff is many things: the president’s gatekeeper, confidant, honest broker of information, “javelin catcher” and the person who oversees the execution of his agenda.But the chief’s most important duty is to tell the president hard truths.President Dwight Eisenhower’s Sherman Adams, a gruff, no-nonsense gatekeeper, was so famous for giving unvarnished advice that he was known as the “Abominable No Man.” In sharp contrast, when it came to Mr. Trump’s myriad schemes, Mr. Meadows was the Abominable Yes Man.It was Mr. Meadows’s critical failure to tell the president what he didn’t want to hear that helped lead to the country’s greatest political scandal, and his own precipitous fall.Donald Rumsfeld, who served as a chief of staff to Gerald Ford, understood the importance of talking to the boss “with the bark off.” The White House chief of staff “is the one person besides his wife,” he explained, “who can look him right in the eye and say, ‘this is not right. You simply can’t go down that road. Believe me, it’s not going to work.’” A good chief is on guard for even the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Rumsfeld once forbade President Ford to attend a birthday party for the Democratic majority leader Tip O’Neill because it was being hosted by a foreign lobbyist with a checkered reputation.There used to be stiff competition for the title of history’s worst White House chief of staff. Mr. Eisenhower’s chief Adams was driven from the job by a scandal involving a vicuna coat; Mr. Nixon’s Haldeman served 18 months in prison for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal; and George H.W. Bush’s John Sununu resigned under fire after using government transportation on personal trips.But the crimes Mr. Meadows is accused of are orders of magnitude greater than those of his predecessors. Even Mr. Haldeman’s transgressions pale in comparison. Mr. Nixon’s chief covered up a botched attempt to bug the headquarters of the political opposition. Mr. Meadows is charged with racketeering — for his participation in a shakedown of a state official for nonexistent votes — and soliciting a violation of an oath by a public officer.Mr. Meadows didn’t just act as a doormat to President Trump; he seemed to let everyone have his or her way. Even as he tried to help Mr. Trump remain in office, Mr. Meadows agreed to give a deputy chief of staff, Chris Liddell, the go-ahead to carry out a stealth transition of power to Joe Biden. This made no sense, but it was just the way Mr. Meadows rolled. Mr. Trump’s chief is a world-class glad-hander and charmer.As part of the efforts to subvert the 2020 election, Mr. Meadows paraded a cast of incompetent bootlickers into the Oval Office. This culminated in a wild meeting on the night of Dec. 18, 2020 — when Mr. Trump apparently considered ordering the U.S. military to seize state voting machines before backing down. (Even his servile sidekick Rudy Giuliani objected.) A few days later, Mr. Meadows traveled to Cobb County, Ga., where he tried to talk his way into an election audit meeting he had no right to attend, only to be barred at the door.All the while, the indictment shows that Mr. Meadows was sharing lighthearted remarks about claims of widespread voter fraud. In an exchange of texts, Mr. Meadows told the White House lawyer Eric Herschmann that his son had been unable to find more than “12 obituaries and 6 other possibles” (dead Biden voters). Referring to Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Herschmann replied sarcastically: “That sounds more like it. Maybe he can help Rudy find the other 10k?” Mr. Meadows responded: “LOL.”Mr. Meadows’s testimony this week that his actions were just part of his duties as White House chief of staff is a total misrepresentation of the position. In fact, an empowered chief can reel in a president when he’s headed toward the cliff — even a powerful, charismatic president like Ronald Reagan. One day in 1983, James A. Baker III, Mr. Reagan’s quintessential chief, got word that the president, enraged by a damaging leak, had ordered everyone who’d attended a national security meeting to undergo a lie-detector test. Mr. Baker barged into the Oval Office. “Mr. President,” he said, “this would be a terrible thing in my view for your administration. You can’t strap up to a polygraph the vice president of the United States. He was elected. He’s a constitutional officer.” Mr. Reagan’s secretary of state, George Shultz, who was dining with the president, chimed in, saying he’d take a polygraph but would then resign. Mr. Reagan rescinded the order that same day.Why did Mr. Meadows squander his career, his reputation and possibly his liberty by casting his lot with Mr. Trump? He once seemed an unlikely casualty of Mr. Trump’s wrecking ball — he was a savvy politician who knew his way around the corridors of power. In fairness to Mr. Meadows, three of his predecessors also failed as Mr. Trump’s chief. “Anyone who goes into the orbit of the former president is virtually doomed,” said Jack Watson, Jimmy Carter’s former chief of staff. “Because saying no to Trump is like spitting into a raging headwind. It was not just Mission Impossible; it was Mission Self-Destruction. I don’t know why he chose to do it.”In their motion to remove the Fulton County case to federal court, the lawyers for Mr. Meadows addressed Mr. Trump’s now infamous Jan. 2, 2021, call with Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger — during which Mr. Meadows rode shotgun as the president cut to the chase: “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes ….” Addressing Mr. Meadows’s role, his lawyers wrote: “One would expect a Chief of Staff to the President of the United States to do these sorts of things.”Actually, any competent White House chief of staff would have thrown his body in front of that call. Any chief worth his salt would have said: “Mr. President, we’re not going to do that. And if you insist, you’re going to make that call yourself. And when you’re through, you’ll find my resignation letter on your desk.”Mr. Meadows failed as Mr. Trump’s chief because he was unable to check the president’s worst impulses. But the bigger problem for our country is that his failure is a template for the inevitable disasters in a potential second Trump administration.Mr. Trump’s final days as president could be a preview. He ran the White House his way — right off the rails. He fired his defense secretary, Mark Esper, replacing him with his counterterrorism chief, Chris Miller, and tried but failed to install lackeys in other positions of power: an environmental lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, as attorney general and a partisan apparatchik, Kash Patel, as deputy C.I.A. director.Mr. Trump has already signaled that in a second term, his department heads and cabinet officers would be expected to blindly obey orders. His director of national intelligence would tell him only what he wants to hear, and his attorney general would prosecute Mr. Trump’s political foes.For Mr. Meadows, his place in history is secure as a primary enabler of a president who tried to overthrow democracy. But his example should serve as a warning of what will happen if Mr. Trump regains the White House. All guardrails will be gone.Chris Whipple is the author of “The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency” and, most recently, “The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden’s White House.”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
Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat and Listen to and follow ‘Matter of Opinion’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicDonald Trump was impeached twice. He has been indicted three times. He lost the 2020 election. And yet he’s the clear Republican front-runner for 2024.Today on “Matter of Opinion,” Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat and Carlos Lozada explore how Trump has created a winning political strategy and what his potential nomination could mean for Joe Biden, the Republican Party and the future of the country.Illustration by The New York Times; photograph by Scott Eisen/Getty ImagesMentioned in this episode:“The Normal Paths to Beating Trump Are Closing,” by Ross Douthat for The New York Times“The Right Way to Resist Trump,” by Luigi Zingales in The New York Times“Rules for Resistance: Advice From Around the Globe for the Age of Trump,” by David Cole and Melanie Wachtell Stinnett“Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025,” by Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman for The New York Times“So Help Me God,” by Mike Pence“The Imperial Presidency,” by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.Thoughts? Email us at matterofopinion@nytimes.com.Follow our hosts on X: Michelle Cottle (@mcottle), Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) and Carlos Lozada (@CarlosNYT).“Matter of Opinion” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Sophia Alvarez Boyd and Derek Arthur. Edited by Stephanie Joyce. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Original music by Isaac Jones, Efim Shapiro, Carole Sabouraud, Sonia Herrero and Pat McCusker. Our fact-checking team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. Our executive producer is Annie-Rose Strasser. More
The president is experiencing a flurry of good news on the economy, crime, immigration and other areas, but voters so far have not given the president much credit.Inflation at long last is down. So are gas prices and Covid deaths and violent crime and illegal immigration. Unemployment remains near record lows. The economy, meanwhile, is growing, wages are climbing, consumer confidence is rising and the stock market is surging.For President Biden, many of the numbers that define an administration are finally heading in the right direction. Except one: his approval rating.Despite the flurry of good news on economic and other domestic fronts in recent weeks and months, Mr. Biden’s poll numbers remain low. Just 39 percent approved of his performance in the latest survey by The New York Times and Siena College, far from the level that would typically give strategists confidence heading into a re-election campaign.An average of multiple recent polls by the website FiveThirtyEight puts Mr. Biden’s approval at 41.2 percent, lower than every president at this stage of their term in the last three-quarters of a century other than Jimmy Carter, who went on to lose his bid for a second term. The Times-Siena survey found Mr. Biden deadlocked at 43 percent to 43 percent with the Republican front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, who has been indicted three times on criminal charges.The question for Democrats is whether Mr. Biden’s public standing is a lagging indicator that will grow in the next several months as improving conditions in the country become more evident to voters, much as Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were transformed from midterm losers to re-election winners. Or as some Democrats fear, is Mr. Biden’s anemic support more about Mr. Biden himself in a highly polarized moment that will make securing a second term next year vastly more challenging?“Even though Biden’s numbers aren’t great, their trendlines, albeit halting, are positive, and we’ll see if they have a soft landing,” said Douglas B. Sosnik, who was Mr. Clinton’s White House counselor and analyzes today’s political trends in regular papers. “I feel like Biden has plenty of time to get the arrows in the right direction the way that Obama did and Clinton did and Reagan did.”Biden aides express equanimity about the sluggish poll numbers, noting that Mr. Biden won in 2020 and that Democrats avoided a predicted “red wave” in 2022 despite his similarly low approval rating then.But they are taking satisfaction for the moment that so many other indicators have turned positive. Given where this presidency began, in the throes of a pandemic and resulting economic crisis, it was hardly a given that a year out from the next election Mr. Biden would preside over a healthy economy and a healthy citizenry.The president’s advisers argue that the positive trendlines of late were a direct result of Mr. Biden’s policies, including widespread Covid-19 vaccination, abundant pandemic relief spending, a mammoth new program to build or repair roads, bridges and other public works, record investments in clean energy and federal support to jump-start the semiconductor industry.Biden aides express equanimity about the sluggish poll numbers, taking satisfaction for the moment that so many other indicators have turned positive.Doug Mills/The New York Times“What you’re seeing is the president put in two hard years of work of putting these policies in place, and they’re starting to deliver the results we thought they would,” said Ron Klain, the president’s first White House chief of staff, who managed many of those efforts.“The good economic news is very important. It creates a base for him to run on,” he added. “I don’t think you’re ever going to persuade Republicans, but I think independents are coming around that the economy is doing better, and I think that’ll be a self-reinforcing cycle.”Republicans will do all they can to foster the opposite impression, though, portraying the nation as a dystopian hellscape awash in crime, uncontrolled immigration, rising debt and economic misery. “Our country is going to hell,” Mr. Trump told supporters in April.Mr. Biden has engaged in the battle of perceptions lately by branding the disparate elements of his agenda “Bidenomics” and embarking on a barnstorming tour of the country claiming credit for avoiding the recession experts had long predicted. His team has proved particularly disciplined in reinforcing that message with the kind of relentless repetition traditionally necessary to cut through the noise of public life.Change in attitudes has been noticeable but incremental. Just 23 percent of Americans think the country is on the right track in the latest Times/Siena poll, but that is up from 13 percent a year ago. Similarly, just 20 percent consider the economy excellent or good, but that is up from 10 percent a year ago, while the share of respondents who called it poor has fallen from 58 percent last summer to 49 percent today.It can take a while for the public perspective to catch up with improving conditions. A recession during the presidency of George H.W. Bush officially ended in 1991, long before the 1992 election, but it did not feel that way to voters who turned instead to Mr. Clinton and his “it’s-the-economy-stupid” campaign.The Great Recession sparked by the 2008 financial crash formally ended in June 2009, but Mr. Obama’s Democrats were still swamped in midterm elections a year later. By the time he came up for re-election in 2012, public confidence in the economy had improved and he secured a second term.Moreover, the lingering effects of recent hardships are not so easily erased. Inflation has fallen from a peak of 9 percent to 3 percent, a remarkable drop, but even though prices have stabilized, they have stabilized at a level still significantly higher than when Mr. Biden took office. Unemployment is at 3.5 percent, matching a half-century low and meaning that most people who want a job can find one, but not all of these positions have high pay with benefits. Wages have begun rising faster than inflation — but only just begun.And for all that, conditions still feel in flux to many people. While illegal border crossings have dropped significantly since last year, they surged again in July. The S&P 500 stock market index has swelled by 17 percent this year, but slipped in recent days after the Fitch Ratings agency downgraded the U.S. government’s credit. Likewise, gas prices remain below their peak but have inched up lately.What may prove more vexing to Mr. Biden and his strategists is the possibility that his political prospects may be decoupled from such issues. In past generations, Americans were more reactive to events in evaluating their presidents, while in recent years they have been more locked into their partisan corner. The days when a president could garner the support of 60 percent or more of the public feel long gone.President George W. Bush’s approval rating in Gallup surveys fell below 50 percent two months after his second inauguration and never surpassed it again for his entire second term. Mr. Obama was below 50 percent for the vast bulk of his second term until his final months in office, and Mr. Trump never enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans for a single day of his presidency. Mr. Biden fell below 50 percent in his first summer in office and has yet to recover.“Presidents today are less and less able to rely on even begrudging approval from partisans on the other side of the aisle,” said Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster. “This places a lower and lower ceiling on presidential job approval, because without the ability to garner any approval from the other side, you are stuck relying solely on your own party’s voters to boost you.”For decades, the American National Election Studies, a collaboration of Stanford University and the University of Michigan, has tracked how Americans felt about presidential candidates, asking them to rate them on a scale of zero to 100, with zero meaning very cool and 100 meaning very warmly.In 1980, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter both received some measure of support from voters who were not in their party.United Press InternationalIt used to be that Americans had at least some respect or admiration for a candidate of the other party. In 1980, Democratic voters gave Mr. Reagan an average of 46.3 while Republicans gave Mr. Carter an average of 40.6. In 2000, Democratic voters gave the younger Mr. Bush an average of 44.8 while Republicans gave the Democrat Al Gore an average of 40.8.But by recent years, views had hardened, becoming far more pronounced and partisan. In 2016, Democratic voters gave Mr. Trump just 14.5 while Republicans gave Hillary Clinton a 16.6. In 2020, Democrats gave Mr. Trump a 9.6 while Republicans gave Mr. Biden a 20.2.“The reality is that presidents lately are not coming into office with even the slightest bit of good will or benefit of the doubt from the other side,” Ms. Anderson said, “and that places a very hard cap on how much approval they can ever hope to garner outside their own team.”So as Mr. Biden and his team look ahead to 2024, they hope to make the most of an improving economy to bring home disaffected Democrats and independents, but they cannot count on a newfound swell of popularity to carry him to victory. Instead, they anticipate a grinding campaign in which they compete for a relatively small share of the electorate while trying to maximize turnout among their own voters.“Republicans are just hard core,” Mr. Klain said. “They’re never going to approve of Joe Biden’s job, no matter what he’s doing. The vote is the vote. What matters is who’s going to win on Election Day.” More
