More stories

  • in

    Trump Found Crucial Support in Congress as He Fought to Stay in Power

    WASHINGTON — Two days after Christmas last year, Richard P. Donoghue, a top Justice Department official in the waning days of the Trump administration, saw an unknown number appear on his phone.Mr. Donoghue had spent weeks fielding calls, emails and in-person requests from President Donald J. Trump and his allies, all of whom asked the Justice Department to declare, falsely, that the election was corrupt. The lame-duck president had surrounded himself with a crew of unscrupulous lawyers, conspiracy theorists, even the chief executive of MyPillow — and they were stoking his election lies.Mr. Trump had been handing out Mr. Donoghue’s cellphone number so that people could pass on rumors of election fraud. Who could be calling him now?It turned out to be a member of Congress: Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, who began pressing the president’s case. Mr. Perry said he had compiled a dossier of voter fraud allegations that the department needed to vet. Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department lawyer who had found favor with Mr. Trump, could “do something” about the president’s claims, Mr. Perry said, even if others in the department would not.The message was delivered by an obscure lawmaker who was doing Mr. Trump’s bidding. Justice Department officials viewed it as outrageous political pressure from a White House that had become consumed by conspiracy theories.It was also one example of how a half-dozen right-wing members of Congress became key foot soldiers in Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the election, according to dozens of interviews and a review of hundreds of pages of congressional testimony about the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio, left, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania at a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., two days after the 2020 election.Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesThe lawmakers — all of them members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus — worked closely with the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, whose central role in Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn a democratic election is coming into focus as the congressional investigation into Jan. 6 gains traction.The men were not alone in their efforts — most Republican lawmakers fell in line behind Mr. Trump’s false claims of fraud, at least rhetorically — but this circle moved well beyond words and into action. They bombarded the Justice Department with dubious claims of voting irregularities. They pressured members of state legislatures to conduct audits that would cast doubt on the election results. They plotted to disrupt the certification on Jan. 6 of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.There was Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the pugnacious former wrestler who bolstered his national profile by defending Mr. Trump on cable television; Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, whose political ascent was padded by a $10 million sweepstakes win; and Representative Paul Gosar, an Arizona dentist who trafficked in conspiracy theories, spoke at a white nationalist rally and posted an animated video that depicted him killing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York.Representatives Paul Gosar of Arizona, left, and Louie Gohmert of Texas spoke at a news conference this month expressing concerns about the treatment of those who had stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesThey were joined by Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, who was known for fiery speeches delivered to an empty House chamber and unsuccessfully sued Vice President Mike Pence over his refusal to interfere in the election certification; and Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, a lawyer who rode the Tea Party wave to Congress and was later sued by a Democratic congressman for inciting the Jan. 6 riot.Mr. Perry, a former Army helicopter pilot who is close to Mr. Jordan and Mr. Meadows, acted as a de facto sergeant. He coordinated many of the efforts to keep Mr. Trump in office, including a plan to replace the acting attorney general with a more compliant official. His colleagues call him General Perry.Mr. Meadows, a former congressman from North Carolina who co-founded the Freedom Caucus in 2015, knew the six lawmakers well. His role as Mr. Trump’s right-hand man helped to remarkably empower the group in the president’s final, chaotic weeks in office.In his book, “The Chief’s Chief,” Mr. Meadows insisted that he and Mr. Trump were simply trying to unfurl serious claims of election fraud. “All he wanted was time to get to the bottom of what really happened and get a fair count,” Mr. Meadows wrote.Congressional Republicans have fought the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation at every turn, but it is increasingly clear that Mr. Trump relied on the lawmakers to help his attempts to retain power. When Justice Department officials said they could not find evidence of widespread fraud, Mr. Trump was unconcerned: “Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen,” he said, according to Mr. Donoghue’s notes of the call.Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, promoted several conspiracy theories as he fought the electoral process.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesNovemberOn Nov. 9, two days after The Associated Press called the race for Mr. Biden, crisis meetings were underway at Trump campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va.Understand the U.S. Capitol RiotOn Jan. 6, 2021, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol.What Happened: Here’s the most complete picture to date of what happened — and why.Timeline of Jan. 6: A presidential rally turned into a Capitol rampage in a critical two-hour time period. Here’s how.Key Takeaways: Here are some of the major revelations from The Times’s riot footage analysis.Death Toll: Five people died in the riot. Here’s what we know about them.Decoding the Riot Iconography: What do the symbols, slogans and images on display during the violence really mean?Mr. Perry and Mr. Jordan huddled with senior White House officials, including Mr. Meadows; Stephen Miller, a top Trump adviser; Bill Stepien, the campaign manager; and Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary.According to two people familiar with the meetings, which have not been previously reported, the group settled on a strategy that would become a blueprint for Mr. Trump’s supporters in Congress: Hammer home the idea that the election was tainted, announce legal actions being taken by the campaign, and bolster the case with allegations of fraud.At a news conference later that day, Ms. McEnany delivered the message.“This election is not over,” she said. “Far from it.”Mr. Jordan’s spokesman said that the meeting was to discuss media strategy, not to overturn the election.On cable television and radio shows and at rallies, the lawmakers used unproved fraud claims to promote the idea that the election had been stolen. Mr. Brooks said he would never vote to certify Mr. Trump’s loss. Mr. Jordan told Fox News that ballots were counted in Pennsylvania after the election, contrary to state law. Mr. Gohmert claimed in Philadelphia that there was “rampant” voter fraud and later said on YouTube that the U.S. military had seized computer servers in Germany used to flip American votes.Mr. Gosar pressed Doug Ducey, the Republican governor of Arizona, to investigate voting equipment made by Dominion Voting Systems, a company at the heart of several false conspiracy theories that Mr. Trump and his allies spread.Mr. Trump’s supporters protested at the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office in Phoenix as ballots were being counted in November 2020.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesMr. Gosar embraced the fraud claims so closely that his chief of staff, Tom Van Flein, rushed to an airplane hangar parking lot in Phoenix after a conspiracy theory began circulating that a suspicious jet carrying ballots from South Korea was about to land, perhaps in a bid to steal the election from Mr. Trump, according to court documents filed by one of the participants. The claim turned out to be baseless.Mr. Van Flein did not respond to detailed questions about the episode.Even as the fraud claims grew increasingly outlandish, Attorney General William P. Barr authorized federal prosecutors to look into “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities. Critics inside and outside the Justice Department slammed the move, saying it went against years of the department’s norms and chipped away at its credibility. But Mr. Barr privately told advisers that ignoring the allegations — no matter how implausible — would undermine faith in the election, according to Mr. Donoghue’s testimony.And in any event, administration officials and lawmakers believed the claims would have little effect on the peaceful transfer of power to Mr. Biden from Mr. Trump, according to multiple former officials.Mainstream Republicans like Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said on Nov. 9 that Mr. Trump had a right to investigate allegations of irregularities, “A few legal inquiries from the president do not exactly spell the end of the Republic,” Mr. McConnell said.Mr. Gohmert unsuccessfully sued Vice President Mike Pence, center, in an attempt to force him to nullify the election results.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesDecemberOn Dec. 1, 2020, Mr. Barr said publicly what he knew to be true: The Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread election fraud. Mr. Biden was the lawful winner.The attorney general’s declaration seemed only to energize the six lawmakers. Mr. Gohmert suggested that the F.B.I. in Washington could not be trusted to investigate election fraud. Mr. Biggs said that Mr. Trump’s allies needed “the imprimatur, quite frankly of the D.O.J.,” to win their lawsuits claiming fraud.They turned their attention to Jan. 6, when Mr. Pence was to officially certify Mr. Biden’s victory. Mr. Jordan, asked if the president should concede, replied, “No way.”The lawmakers started drumming up support to derail the transfer of power.Mr. Gohmert sued Mr. Pence in an attempt to force him to nullify the results of the election. Mr. Perry circulated a letter written by Pennsylvania state legislators to Mr. McConnell and Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader, asking Congress to delay certification. “I’m obliged to concur,” Mr. Perry wrote.Mr. Meadows remained the key leader. When disputes broke out among organizers of the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” rallies, he stepped in to mediate, according to two organizers, Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lynn Lawrence.In one case, Mr. Meadows helped settle a feud about whether to have one or two rallies on Jan. 6. The organizers decided that Mr. Trump would make what amounted to an opening statement about election fraud during his speech at the Ellipse, then the lawmakers would rise in succession during the congressional proceeding and present evidence they had gathered of purported fraud.(That plan was ultimately derailed by the attack on Congress, Mr. Stockton said.)Mr. Trump at the rally outside the White House on Jan. 6. “We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he told his supporters.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesOn Dec. 21, Mr. Trump met with members of the Freedom Caucus to discuss their plans. Mr. Jordan, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Meadows were there.“This sedition will be stopped,” Mr. Gosar wrote on Twitter.Asked about such meetings, Mr. Gosar’s chief of staff said the congressman and his colleagues “have and had every right to attend rallies and speeches.”“None of the members could have anticipated what occurred (on Jan. 6),” Mr. Van Flein added.Mr. Perry was finding ways to exert pressure on the Justice Department. He introduced Mr. Trump to Mr. Clark, the acting head of the department’s civil division who became one of the Stop the Steal movement’s most ardent supporters.Then, after Christmas, Mr. Perry called Mr. Donoghue to share his voter fraud dossier, which focused on unfounded election fraud claims in Pennsylvania.“I had never heard of him before that day,” Mr. Donoghue would later testify to Senate investigators. He assumed that Mr. Trump had given Mr. Perry his personal cellphone number, as the president had done with others who were eager to pressure Justice Department officials to support the false idea of a rigged election.Key Aspects of the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 8The House investigation. More

  • in

    Voting Fraud Charges for 3 in Florida's Villages

    All were residents of the famed, sprawling retirement community northwest of Orlando. Two were Republicans, and one had no affiliation.Three residents of a sprawling Florida retirement community were arrested over the last two weeks on charges of voting more than once in the 2020 general election, according to the authorities.The residents, Jay Ketcik, 63, Joan Halstead, 72, and John Rider, 61, lived in The Villages, a planned community northwest of Orlando where former President Donald J. Trump held a campaign rally shortly before the 2020 election.The three were each charged with casting more than one ballot in an election, according to arrest records from the office of the state attorney in the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Florida.Each charge is a third-degree felony and punishable by up to five years in prison, said Bill Gladson, the state attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Ocala, Fla. Citing rules of professional conduct, Mr. Gladson said on Wednesday that he could not comment on pending cases. Ms. Halstead declined to comment on Wednesday. Mr. Rider and a lawyer for Mr. Ketcik did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Court records did not say for whom the three voted in the 2020 general election or in what other elections they voted out of state. Voting records in the Florida Department of State list Mr. Ketcik and Ms. Halstead as registered Republicans. Mr. Rider has no party affiliation on record.About a 45-minute drive northwest from Orlando, the community was built in the 1960s as a collection of tracts and grew in popularity in the 1980s and 1990s with retirees from Northern states as its organizers added amenities such as movie theaters, shopping and other leisure activities. With more than 130,000 residents, the community of adults 55 and older, which stretches into three counties, has become one of Florida’s fastest-growing metro areas.The disputed votes had no effect on the 2020 election. Mr. Trump won Florida by about 51.2 percent and by an even far greater margin in The Villages, although Joe Biden had energetic supporters there as well. After residents who supported Mr. Trump held a golf cart rally amid counterprotesters, he tweeted a video of the event, writing, “Thank you to the great people of The Villages.” Then came his rally in October.Following his defeat in the 2020 election, Mr. Trump made baseless claims of rampant voter fraud, which failed to gain any traction in courts across seven states. But the former president and his allies have continued to repeat the false allegations, and Republican legislators have used the claims to justify new restrictions on voting.But election officials in dozens of states representing both political parties have said that there was no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role deciding the presidential race. In general, voter fraud is extremely rare in the United States, and cases that do occur are often isolated and unlikely to affect an election.Mr. Ketcik and Ms. Halstead turned themselves in to the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office Detention Center on Nov. 29 and Dec. 8, according to the sheriff’s office. Mr. Rider was arrested by Brevard County deputies at a cruise ship terminal at Port Canaveral on Dec. 3, according to prosecutors.It was not clear whether the three residents knew each other. Each was booked into a detention center or jail and released the same day of their arrest, records show.A probable cause affidavit said that, in addition to casting more than one vote in Florida in October 2020, Ms. Halstead and Mr. Rider also cast second ballots in New York through an absentee ballot. Mr. Ketcik was also accused of voting through mail in Florida and casting a second, absentee ballot in Michigan.The investigation into allegations of voter fraud by Mr. Ketcik, Ms. Halstead and Mr. Rider was initiated by the office of the Sumter County supervisor of elections, Bill Keen, according to arrest records. His office did not immediately respond to an inquiry for comment about the charges.Even though voter fraud is extremely rare, Republican leaders in several states, including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, have cited isolated cases to pursue tougher rules around voting in the wake of the 2020 election. On Wednesday, Christina Pushaw, a spokeswoman for Mr. DeSantis, said, “Multiple voting is unlawful.”She added, “It isn’t a crime to be registered to vote in more than one state, as long as you only vote in one.”Ms. Pushaw said that in 2019, the state joined the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonprofit group that helps states improve the accuracy of voter rolls. By joining the system, she said, state officials could crosscheck voter registration data to find duplicate registrations and outdated records.“Though the system is not perfect, it does help ensure election integrity and deter potential fraud,” she said. More

  • in

    How to Tell When Your Country Is Past the Point of No Return

    Political analysts, scholars and close observers of government are explicitly raising the possibility that the polarized American electoral system has come to the point at which a return to traditional democratic norms will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.The endangered state of American politics is the dominant theme of eight articles published by the National Academy of Sciences on Tuesday, with titles like “Polarization and tipping points” and “Inter-individual cooperation mediated by partisanship complicates Madison’s cure for ‘mischiefs of faction.’ ”The academy is not alone. On Dec. 6, The Atlantic released “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun,” by Barton Gellman, and “Are We Doomed? To head off the next insurrection, we’ll need to practice envisioning the worst,” by George Packer.On Dec. 10, The Washington Post published “18 Steps to a Democratic Breakdown” which warned:Democracy is most likely to break down through a series of incremental actions that cumulatively undermine the electoral process, resulting in a presidential election that produces an outcome clearly at odds with the voters’ will. It is this comparatively quiet but steady subversion, rather than a violent coup or insurrection against a sitting president, that Americans today have to fear most.Michael W. Macy, a professor of sociology at Cornell and the lead author of “Polarization and tipping points,” put it this way in an email:Unlike the threat to democracy posed by a military coup, the threat posed by authoritarian populism is incremental. If the water temperature increases only one degree per hour it may take a while before you notice it is too hot and by that time it is too late. We might be better off if we faced an armed insurrection, which might be the exo-shock needed to get the G.O.P. establishment to wake up.The political scientist Suzanne Mettler, also at Cornell, used the same metaphor of slowly boiling water in her reply to my query:The greatest danger to democracy right now has emerged in one of our two major parties — a longstanding party that helped to protect democracy until recently, and this makes it hard for people to recognize what is going on. Finally, I think that most Americans now see politics through very partisan lenses and are mostly attentive to how their “team” is doing; they are much less likely to be thinking about the health of the basic pillars of democracy, e.g. electoral integrity, the rule of law, the legitimacy of the opposition, and the integrity of rights. Our political system is in crisis and we should be shouting from the rooftops about it and coming together to save it.Zack Beauchamp, a senior correspondent at Vox, writing on Dec. 9, raised similar concerns: “We are experiencing failures on both the elite and mass public level,” he wrote, as Republican elites “have chosen to normalize the violence committed by their extreme right flank on Jan. 6.”The activist anti-democratic Trump wing of the Republican Party, committed to avoiding at nearly any cost a political system dominated by an Election Day majority of racial and ethnic minorities, women and social and cultural liberals, has adopted an aggressive strategy to preserve the political power of whites, especially heteronormative white Christians.Democracy — meaning equal representation of all citizens and, crucially, majority rule — has, in fact, become the enemy of the contemporary Republican Party. As The Washington Post noted on Jan. 24, “The last two Republicans to win a majority of the popular vote in a presidential contest were father and son: George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2004.” In the four elections since 2004, the Republican nominee has consistently lost the popular vote to the Democratic candidate, including Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.The widely publicized efforts by Republican-controlled state legislatures to politicize election administration and to disenfranchise Democrats through gerrymandering and restrictive voting laws testify to the determination of Republicans — especially the 66 percent who say they believe that the 2020 election was stolen — to wrest control of election machinery. On Sept. 2, ProPublica documented a national movement to take over the Republican Party at the grass roots level in “Election Deniers Organize to Seize Control of the G.O.P. — and Reshape America’s Elections.”These developments, taken together, are amplifying alarms about the viability of contemporary democracy in America.“The nonlinear feedback dynamics of asymmetric political polarization,” a Dec. 14 paper by Naomi Ehrich Leonard and Anastasia Bizyaeva, both at Princeton, Keena Lipsitz at Queens College, Alessio Franci at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Yphtach Lelkes at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that in the case of polarization, there are:critical thresholds or moments when processes become difficult if not impossible to reverse. Our model suggests that this threshold has been crossed by Republicans in Congress and may very soon be breached by Democrats.I sent the five authors a series of questions asking them to elaborate on a number of points, and they replied in a jointly written email. My first question was: “Could you explain in terms accessible to the layperson how ‘political processes reinforce themselves’ in ways that can push a political party past a ‘tipping point’ ”?Their reply:Political processes, like any other natural dynamical process, in nature, technology, or society, have the capacity to feed themselves and enter an unstable positive, or, self-reinforcing, feedback loop. A classic example is an explosion: when thermal energy is provided to burn a few molecules of a combustible substance, they in turn produce more energy, which burns more molecules, producing more energy in a never-ending loop, at least until combustibles are no longer available.A similar process can take place in politics, they argue:For example, elected officials can respond to the signals of extremist donors by becoming more extreme themselves. When these extremist representatives become party leaders, they are then in a position to punish moderates in their party by backing more extreme candidates in primaries. This in turn leads to the election of more extremist candidates and the cycle continues.In theory, votersare a potential check on this cascading extremism, but they must be willing to punish ideologically extreme legislators by voting them out of office. As voters have become more concerned about party labels than ideology, they have become less willing to do that, allowing cascading extremism to continue.What about the Democratic Party, I asked?The Democrats are indeed still below the tipping point; therefore, their polarization state is still evolving slowly, or, linearly. But looking at the current policy mood trend and projecting our model slightly into the future, the present large left shift in policy mood due to the Trump era could easily cause the Democrats to tune up their ideological self-reinforcing behavior and let them pass their polarizing tipping point.The good news, the five authors continued, “is that the Democratic Party is still very much in control of their trajectory.”Leonard and her co-authors are apprehensive about the future course of the Republican Party:Even if Republican voters suddenly decide to start punishing extremists in their party, so many other parts of the political process — interest groups, right-wing media, donors — encourage and reinforce the extremism that we expect it would have little effect. In fact, Republican leaders would very likely simply stop listening to Republican voters or ignore elections altogether. Indeed, this is already happening.In “Polarization and tipping points” Macy, along with Manqing Ma, Daniel R. Tabin, Jianxi Gao and Boleslaw K. Szymanski, all of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, map out the risks of escalating partisan hostility:the existence of a tipping point beyond which the activation of shared interests can no longer bring warring factions together, even in the face of a common threat. Our interest in this problem is motivated by a series of crises that might be expected to activate a broad political identity and unified response: the Great Recession, Russian electoral interference, impending climate catastrophe, a global pandemic, and, most recently, the January 6. attack on the U.S. Congress.As partisanship becomes a core element of voters’ self-identity and as voters adopt policy stands in line with their party, polarization reaches new and threatening heights, Macy and his four co-authors argue. In an email, Macy wrote:The most likely outcome of increasing polarization is political paralysis in which the parties are more interested in preventing the other side from winning than in solving problems. We have heard politicians even feel so emboldened that they can publicly acknowledge that their goal is obstruction, not problem solving. That is the most likely outcome of extreme polarization. A less likely but more frightening outcome is that the partisan animosity against the opposition becomes so intense that each side now views the other as “traitors” or “enemies of the people.” When that happens, the party in power may feel justified in changing the rules of the game to prevent the other party from being able to hold it accountable.An R.P.I. report on the Macy paper quotes Szymanski:We see this very disturbing pattern in which a shock brings people a little bit closer initially, but if polarization is too extreme, eventually the effects of a shared fate are swamped by the existing divisions and people become divided even on the shock issue.“If we reach that point,” Szymanski added, “we cannot unite even in the face of war, climate change, pandemics, or other challenges to the survival of our society.”I asked Szymanski to describe the nature of a tipping point which, once triggered, would preclude reversion to traditional democratic norms. He replied by email:In our democracy, the tipping point is achieved when all discussions on divisive issues are within polarized groups and none across groups, because then neither can differences be resolved, nor can we agree to disagree.In “Inter-individual cooperation mediated by partisanship complicates Madison’s cure for ‘mischiefs of faction’” Mari Kawakatsu, Simon A. Levin and Corina E. Tarnita, all of Princeton, and Yphtach Lelkes of Penn make the case that the core strategy developed by one of the nation’s founders to constrain destructive partisan divisions no longer works. The phrase they refer to in the title of their paper comes from Madison’s famous argument, in Federalist Paper No. 10, that the pluralist character of a country as large and diverse as the United States equips the nation to counter “the mischiefs of faction.”The potential of the majority to exercise tyrannical domination diminishes as “you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” Madison wrote, making it “less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”Kawakatsu and her colleagues argue that, in theory, contemporary trends should favor Madison’s strategy:Potentially driven by increases in educational attainment, the nationalization of politics, and changes to the information environment, the number of issues people care about and consider within the realm of national politics has markedly increased. Despite this trend, and the consequent expectation that an abundance of issues will improve the collective cohesion by decreasing the likelihood of monoliths, polarization is markedly worse.How has this come about?“A potential explanation for this paradox is the decreasing dimensionality of the issue space,” Kawakatsu and her colleagues write. “In other words, although the number of issues may have increased, individuals’ opinions on these issues might be so strongly correlated with their political ideology that, in effect, there are only one or two issue dimensions.” Put another way, members of both parties have increasingly adopted the beliefs and issue stands of their fellow partisans, effectively eliminating crosscutting interests, leaving the only salient division the split between Democrats and Republicans.When partisan bias is extreme, the authors write,individuals become completely closed off to influence from ideologically divergent peers, and the emergent tribalism boosts inter-individual cooperation at the cost of a weakened, polarized collective. This suggests that, in a highly polarized state, there will be an emergent tension between the individual and the collective levels, with little incentive for individuals to reduce the collective polarization.The Kawakatsu article builds on the work of Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler, political scientists at Berkeley, who wrote the 2020 essay “Madison’s Constitution Under Stress: A Developmental Analysis of Political Polarization” and the November 2021 book chapter “Polarization and the Durability of Madisonian Checks and Balances.”In the chapter, Pierson and Schickler write:Our two-party system has been grounded in a structural decentralization of political authority. Yet the emergence of hyper-partisanship means that the check on authoritarian developments in the presidency that the Madisonian system relies on most, Congress, may not work. Instead, G.O.P. members of Congress in particular face multiple incentives to bandwagon rather than resist. Among those incentives are the intense preferences of the party’s interest groups, the heavily ‘red’ and negatively partisan electoral bases of these politicians, and the likelihood that influential partisan media will exact a very high price for defection.Given these realities, Pierson and Schickler continue,the developmental perspective we offer raises a disturbing prospect: Under conditions of hyperpolarization, with the associated shifts in meso-institutional arrangements and the growth of tribalism, the Madisonian institutions of the United States may make it more vulnerable to democratic backsliding than many other wealthy democracies would be.In an email, Pierson wrote:Today, polarization has become self-reinforcing. Most of that decentralization is gone — state parties are more linked to national parties; so are many very powerful interest groups; so is the media (especially for the GOP). Everything gets fed into the existing lines of division rather than producing something crosscutting. Defection from one’s party ‘team’ becomes harder to contemplate because victory for the team has become so important, and defection is more likely to result in swift retribution. There is nothing in the system “pulling things back to the middle” or disrupting lines of division. This situation is truly novel for the United States (although there are some parallels to the 1850s, when politics became nationalized around a single issue divide). It is in a very real sense a new and quite different political system.An Aug. 3-Sept.7, CNN survey of 2,119 people demonstrates the differing ways Democrats and Republicans are responding to the emerging threats to democracy.Far higher percentages of Republicans, many of them preoccupied by racial and tribal anxiety, believe “American democracy is under attack” (75 percent agree, 22 percent disagree) than Democrats (46 percent agree, 48 percent disagree). Republicans are also somewhat more likely to believe (57-43) than Democrats (49-51) “that, in the next few years, some elected officials will successfully overturn the results of an election in the United States because their party did not win.”This level of anxiety is in and of itself dangerous, all the more so when it masks the true aim of America’s contemporary right-wing movement, the restoration and preservation of white hegemony. It is not beyond imagining that Republicans could be prepared, fueled by a mix of fear and provocation, to push the nation over the brink.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

  • in

    10 Senate Races to Watch in 2022

    Democrats have a razor-thin margin that could be upended with the loss of a single seat.Sign up here to get On Politics in your inbox on Tuesdays and Thursdays.A single state could determine whether Democrats maintain control of the Senate after the midterm elections, a tenuous advantage that hinges on the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris.Thirty-four Senate seats are at stake in 2022, but the list of races considered competitive is much smaller.Most are in states that were fiercely contested by President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump in 2020. The burden will be on Democrats to try to ward off the midterm losses that have historically bedeviled the party holding the presidency, said Donna Brazile, a former interim party head and veteran strategist.“Joe Biden has a lot riding on these states,” she said. “He doesn’t have a lot of wiggle room.”AlaskaOf the seven Republicans in the Senate who voted to convict Mr. Trump in the impeachment trial that followed the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Senator Lisa Murkowski is the only one facing re-election in 2022.Mr. Trump, who is seeking to exact revenge against his impeachment foes, endorsed Kelly Tshibaka, a former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration, to run against Ms. Murkowski in the primary.ArizonaSenator Mark Kelly, a Democrat who won a special election in 2020 to fill the seat once held by John McCain, is now seeking a full term.Both parties are prioritizing the race.The Republican field includes Mark Brnovich, Arizona’s attorney general since 2015; Mick McGuire, a retired major general in the U.S. Air Force; Jim Lamon, a businessman; and Blake Masters, chief operating officer of an investment firm run by Trump’s tech pal Peter Thiel.GeorgiaStacey Abrams’s decision to run again for governor could boost the re-election prospects of Senator Raphael Warnock, a fellow Democrat, Ms. Brazile said.Mr. Warnock, the pastor at the storied Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, is seeking a full term after defeating Kelly Loeffler last January in a runoff.His victory helped give Democrats control of both Senate seats in Georgia, where an expansion of the Democratic voter rolls in Atlanta’s suburbs has dented Republicans’ political advantage in the South and flipped the state for Biden.Now, Mr. Warnock is seeking a full term.“What he’ll get from Stacey is somebody who can stir up the electorate to get the results he needs to win in 2022,” Ms. Brazile said.Herschel Walker, the Georgia college football legend backed by Mr. Trump, is the favorite among seven Republicans who have filed to run so far. He has faced repeated accusations of threatening his ex-wife.FloridaIn Mr. Trump’s adopted home state, Senator Marco Rubio is seeking a third term.Mr. Rubio had raised more than $11.6 million in 2021 through September.He is facing Representative Val B. Demings, a Democrat with significant name recognition who out-raised him over the same period, with more than $13 million.NevadaCatherine Cortez Masto, the first Latina senator, faces her first re-election test since her milestone victory in 2016, a race that was flooded with nearly $90 million in outside spending.Opposing her is Adam Laxalt, a former Nevada attorney general who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018.Mr. Laxalt has been endorsed by both Mr. Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader. Mr. Biden carried Nevada by fewer than 34,000 votes last year.New HampshireRepublicans have circled New Hampshire as a pickup opportunity, salivating over the dismal approval numbers of Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat.But their enthusiasm was tempered when Gov. Chris Sununu said that he would run again for his current office instead of the Senate. Kelly Ayotte, whom Ms. Hassan unseated by about 1,000 votes in 2016, also opted out.Don Bolduc, a tough-talking Republican candidate and retired Army general, caused a stir recently when he called Mr. Sununu a “Chinese communist sympathizer.”North CarolinaSenator Richard Burr, another Republican who voted to convict Mr. Trump during his second impeachment trial, is retiring.Waiting in the wings is a crowded field of Republicans that includes Pat McCrory, a former governor; Representative Ted Budd, who has been endorsed by Trump; and Mark Walker, a former congressman.The Democrats include Cheri Beasley, a former chief justice of North Carolina’s Supreme Court and the first Black woman to serve in that role, and Jeff Jackson, a state senator and military veteran from the Charlotte area.OhioA large field of G.O.P. candidates will vie for the seat being vacated by the Republican senator Rob Portman, who is retiring.The leading Republican is Josh Mandel, Ohio’s former treasurer and an ardent Trump supporter. J.D. Vance, the “Hillbilly Elegy” author and Republican venture capitalist who has performed a whiplash-inducing conversion to Trumpism, is also running.Other G.O.P. candidates include Matt Dolan, a state senator; Jane Timkin, the state party’s former head; and the businessmen Bernie Moreno and Mike Gibbons.“You’ve got a lot of people fighting for the populist conservative lane,” said Beth Hansen, a Republican strategist and former manager of John Kasich’s campaigns for governor and president.Ms. Hansen downplayed the possibility of Republicans alienating moderate voters in a combative primary.“Honestly, I’m not sure these guys could pivot any further to the right,” she said.Representative Tim Ryan, supported by Ohio’s other senator, Sherrod Brown, is a prohibitive favorite among Democrats.PennsylvaniaAn open-seat race in Pennsylvania generated even more of a buzz when the celebrity physician Dr. Mehmet Oz recently jumped into fray.He joined a large group of candidates trying to succeed Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Republican critic of Mr. Trump who is retiring.Dr. Oz’s entrance came just days after Sean Parnell, a leading Republican endorsed by Mr. Trump, suspended his campaign amid allegations of spousal and child abuse.Kathy Barnette, a former financial executive, is also running as a Republican, and David McCormick, a hedge fund executive, has been exploring getting into the race as well.Democrats have several seasoned candidates that include Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and Representative Conor Lamb. Also running are Dr. Val Arkoosh, a top elected official from the Philadelphia suburbs, and Malcolm Kenyatta, a state representative from Philadelphia.WisconsinA top target of Democrats is Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican whose approval rating has cratered amid an onslaught of television ads criticizing him for casting doubts about Mr. Biden’s election. Mr. Johnson has yet to announce his re-election plans.The top tier of Democrats includes Mandela Barnes, the lieutenant governor; Sarah Godlewski, the state treasurer; Alex Lasry, the Milwaukee Bucks executive ; and Tom Nelson, the top elected official in Outagamie County.On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

  • in

    Fox News Hosts Sent Texts to Meadows Urging Trump to Act as Jan. 6 Attack Unfolded

    Afterward, on their shows, Laura Ingraham spread the false claim of antifa involvement, and Sean Hannity referred to the 2020 election as a “train wreck.”Three prominent Fox News anchors sent concerned text messages on Jan. 6 to Mark Meadows, the last chief of staff for President Donald J. Trump, urging him to persuade the president to take the riot seriously and to make an effort to stop it.The texts were made public on Monday, shortly before the House committee scrutinizing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol voted 9-0 in favor of recommending that Mr. Meadows be charged with contempt of Congress. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, read the text messages aloud.The texts, part of a trove of 9,000 documents that Mr. Meadows had turned over before he stopped cooperating with the inquiry, were sent to the former White House chief of staff by Laura Ingraham, the host of the nighttime show “The Ingraham Angle”; Sean Hannity, a longtime prime-time host who once appeared onstage with Mr. Trump at a campaign rally; and Brian Kilmeade, a host of the morning show “Fox & Friends.”“Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home,” Ms. Ingraham wrote. “This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.”Mr. Kilmeade echoed that concern, texting Mr. Meadows: “Please, get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-1g3vlj0{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g3vlj0{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-1g3vlj0 strong{font-weight:600;}.css-1g3vlj0 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1g3vlj0{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0.25rem;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Sean Hannity texted: “Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.”Ms. Ingraham’s text came in contrast with what she said on her Fox News program in the hours after the attack, when she promoted the false theory that members of antifa were involved.“From a chaotic Washington tonight, earlier today the Capitol was under siege by people who can only be described as antithetical to the MAGA movement,” Ms. Ingraham said on the Jan. 6 episode. “Now, they were likely not all Trump supporters, and there are some reports that antifa sympathizers may have been sprinkled throughout the crowd.”Ms. Ingraham went on to cite “legitimate concerns about how these elections were conducted,” while adding that any dissatisfaction with the vote should not have resulted in violence.Mr. Hannity, a onetime informal adviser to Mr. Trump, condemned the attack, saying at the top of his Jan. 6 show, “Today’s perpetrators must be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” He also said that the nation must do more to protect law enforcement and political representatives.On that matter of who was responsible, Mr. Hannity said, “I don’t care if the radical left, radical right — I don’t know who they are. They’re not people I would support. So how were officials not prepared? We got to answer that question. How did they allow the Capitol building to be breached in what seemed like less than a few minutes?”He also brought up the 2020 election, the results of which had been questioned by Mr. Trump and his supporters in the weeks before the riot, although there was no evidence of widespread fraud.“Our election, frankly, was a train wreck,” Mr. Hannity said. “Eighty-three percent, according to Gallup, of Republicans, and millions of others, do not have faith in these election results. You can’t just snap your finger and hope that goes away.”The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol voted 9 to 0 to recommend Mark Meadows, the last White House chief of staff for former President Donald J. Trump, be charged with criminal contempt of Congress for defying its subpoena.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesRepresentatives for Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment.In the 11 months since the attack, the Fox News hosts who appear in the morning and in the prime-time hours have often played down the events of Jan. 6, with some likening it to the violence during the widespread protests against racism and police violence in the summer of 2020.Understand the Claim of Executive Privilege in the Jan. 6. InquiryCard 1 of 8A key issue yet untested. More

  • in

    America’s Anti-Democratic Movement

    It’s making progress.American politics these days can often seem fairly normal. President Biden has had both big accomplishments and big setbacks in his first year, as is typical. In Congress, members are haggling over bills and passing some of them. At the Supreme Court, justices are hearing cases. Daily media coverage tends to reflect this apparent sense of political normalcy.But American politics today is not really normal. It may instead be in the midst of a radical shift away from the democratic rules and traditions that have guided the country for a very long time.An anti-democratic movement, inspired by Donald Trump but much larger than him, is making significant progress, as my colleague Charles Homans has reported. In the states that decide modern presidential elections, this movement has already changed some laws and ousted election officials, with the aim of overturning future results. It has justified the changes with blatantly false statements claiming that Biden did not really win the 2020 election.The movement has encountered surprisingly little opposition. Most leading Republican politicians have either looked the other way or supported the anti-democratic movement. In the House, Republicans ousted Liz Cheney from a leadership position because she called out Trump’s lies.The pushback within the Republican Party has been so weak that about 60 percent of Republican adults now tell pollsters that they believe the 2020 election was stolen — a view that’s simply wrong.Most Democratic officials, for their part, have been focused on issues other than election security, like Covid-19 and the economy. It’s true that congressional Democrats have tried to pass a new voting rights bill, only to be stymied by Republican opposition and the filibuster. But these Democratic efforts have been sprawling and unfocused. They have included proposals — on voter-ID rules and mail-in ballots, for example — that are almost certainly less important than a federal law to block the overturning of elections, as The Times’s Nate Cohn has explained.All of which has created a remarkable possibility: In the 2024 presidential election, Republican officials in at least one state may overturn a legitimate election result, citing fraud that does not exist, and award the state’s electoral votes to the Republican nominee. Trump tried to use this tactic in 2020, but local officials rebuffed him.Since then, his supporters have launched a campaign — with the Orwellian name “Stop the Steal” — to ensure success next time. Steve Bannon has played a central role, using his podcast to encourage Trump supporters to take over positions in election administration, ProPublica has explained.“This is a five-alarm fire,” Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic secretary of state in Michigan, who presided over the 2020 vote count there, told The Times. “If people in general, leaders and citizens, aren’t taking this as the most important issue of our time and acting accordingly, then we may not be able to ensure democracy prevails again in ’24.”Barton Gellman, who wrote a recent Atlantic magazine article about the movement, told Terry Gross of NPR last week, “This is, I believe, a democratic emergency, and that without very strong and systematic pushback from protectors of democracy, we’re going to lose something that we can’t afford to lose about the way we run elections.”Theda Skocpol, a Harvard political scientist, notes that the movement is bigger than Trump. “I think things have now moved to the point that many Republican Party officials and elected officeholders are self-starters,” she told Thomas Edsall of Times Opinion.Ballot counting in Wisconsin in November 2020.Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesIn plain sightThe main battlegrounds are swing states where Republicans control the state legislature, like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Republicans control these legislatures because of both gerrymandered districts and Democratic weakness outside of major metro areas. (One way Democrats can push back against the anti-democratic movement: Make a bigger effort to win working-class votes.) The Constitution lets state legislatures set the rules for choosing presidential electors.“None of this is happening behind closed doors,” Jamelle Bouie, a Times columnist, recently wrote. “We are headed for a crisis of some sort. When it comes, we can be shocked that it is actually happening, but we shouldn’t be surprised.”Here is an overview of recent developments:Arizona. Republican legislators have passed a law taking away authority over election lawsuits from the secretary of state, who’s now a Democrat, and giving it to the attorney general, a Republican. Legislators are debating another bill that would allow them to revoke election certification “by majority vote at any time before the presidential inauguration.”Georgia. Last year, Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, helped stop Trump’s attempts to reverse the result. State legislators in Georgia have since weakened his powers, and a Trump-backed candidate is running to replace Raffensperger next year. Republicans have also passed a law that gives a commission they control the power to remove local election officials.Michigan. Kristina Karamo, a Trump-endorsed candidate who has repeated the lie that the 2020 elections were fraudulent, is running for secretary of state, the office that oversees elections. (Republican candidates are running on similar messages in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere, according to ABC News.)Pennsylvania. Republicans are trying to amend the state’s Constitution to make the secretary of state an elected position, rather than one that the governor appoints. Pennsylvania is also one of the states where Trump allies — like Stephen Lindemuth, who attended the Jan. 6 rally that turned into an attack on Congress — have won local races to oversee elections.Wisconsin. Senator Ron Johnson is urging the Republican-controlled Legislature to take full control of federal elections. Doing so could remove the governor, currently a Democrat, from the process, and weaken the bipartisan state elections commission.What’s next?The new anti-democratic movement may still fail. This year, for example, Republican legislators in seven states proposed bills that would have given partisan officials a direct ability to change election results. None of the bills passed.Arguably the most important figures on this issue are Republican officials and voters who believe in democracy and are uncomfortable with using raw political power to overturn an election result.Miles Taylor, a former Trump administration official, has helped to start the Renew America Movement, which supports candidates — of either party — running against Trump-backed Republicans. It is active in congressional races but does not have enough resources to compete in the state contests that often determine election procedures, Taylor told The Times.Gellman, the Atlantic writer, argues that Democrats and independents — as well as journalists — can make a difference by paying more attention. “Grass-roots organizers who are in support of democratic institutions,” he said on NPR, “could be doing what the Republicans are doing at the precinct and the county and the state level in terms of organizing to control election authorities to ensure that they remain nonpartisan or neutral.”For more: Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, was involved in fighting the election outcome, according to the House Committee investigating the Capitol attack.THE LATEST NEWSThe VirusCovid has killed one in 100 Americans 65 or older.Weak health care infrastructure poses challenges for many of Africa’s vaccination programs.A sense of endlessness: Anxiety and depression are taking hold.Other Big StoriesSalvaging belongings from wreckage in Kentucky.William Widmer for The New York TimesTornadoes killed at least 90 people in the U.S. this weekend. Here’s where they struck.Chris Wallace is leaving Fox News after 18 years — and after raising questions about Tucker Carlson’s work — to join CNN.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California called for legislation modeled on Texas’s abortion law to go after the gun industry.A litany of crises is confronting Los Angeles before next year’s mayoral election.OpinionsThe New York TimesThe climate crisis is reshaping the planet. Here’s what it looks like in 193 countries.Gail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss inflation and crime.MORNING READSAnd just like that: It’s Peloton vs. “Sex and the City.”The Media Equation: A climate-change comedy nails the media’s failures.Quiz time: The average score on our latest news quiz was 8.6. See how well you do.Advice from Wirecutter: Beware overpriced, mediocre wines.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 6Numerous inquiries More

  • in

    ¿Qué hay detrás del giro a la derecha del gobernador de Texas?

    La efectividad de la transformación de Greg Abbott, quien ha implementado medidas cercanas a la base más conservadora del Partido Republicano, se pondrá a prueba en las elecciones del próximo año.AUSTIN, Texas — El gobernador Greg Abbott sorprendió a algunos de sus colaboradores cuando este otoño llegó a su despacho con los planes de un nuevo decreto pandémico: una prohibición para que los empleadores privados de Texas no pudieran exigir la vacunación a sus empleados.La decisión marcó una transformación dramática para el gobernador, quien ya lleva dos mandatos, un tipo de intromisión en los asuntos de las empresas que Abbott siempre ha rechazado. De hecho, solo dos meses antes se había opuesto a este tipo de medidas. “Los negocios privados no necesitan que el gobierno maneje sus negocios”, dijo una portavoz en aquel momento.Su cambio de actitud suscitó críticas de los principales grupos empresariales de Texas, desde corporaciones como American Airlines, y de un importante actor de la política republicana local, Texans for Lawsuit Reform. También provocó frustración entre algunos integrantes del personal del gobernador.Quienes han conocido a Abbott y visto su ascenso —de abogado a juez de una corte estatal a procurador general y, finalmente, a gobernador— han quedado sorprendidos con su súbita decisión de alinearse con los activistas más estridentes del Partido Republicano.Pero como un gobernador que tiene un sentido atento de los vientos políticos, en un estado en donde el dominio republicano sigue siendo total, su prohibición a los mandatos de vacunación era una forma de ser coherente con su afición por interpretar el momento. Y en este momento, incluso en un estado como Texas, donde todo gira en torno a los negocios, los intereses corporativos están fuera de lugar y los culturales están en boga.Está supervisando una auditoría de los resultados electorales de 2020 en cuatro grandes condados de Texas, un estado en donde el expresidente Donald J. Trump ganó por más de 5 puntos. Pidió y aprobó legislación que restringe a los atletas transgénero luego de que cuatro años antes parecía haberse alegrado de que no avanzaran las restricciones en los baños para las personas trans en el estado ante la oposición de los empresarios. Pasó de ordenar el uso de mascarillas el año pasado, a prohibir dichas órdenes esta primavera.Su giro a la derecha será puesto a prueba el próximo año, cuando encara a su oponente más conocido y con más financiamiento hasta el momento: Beto O’ Rourke, quien anunció su candidatura a finales del mes pasado. Su enfrentamiento hace preguntarse cuánto puede ir un gobernador de Texas hacia la derecha y mantenerse frente a una ola creciente de demócratas en las principales ciudades y suburbios del estado.La elección también es una prueba importante de la fuerza de Abbott a nivel nacional, donde a menudo se le menciona junto con otros posibles candidatos presidenciales alternativos a Trump, como el gobernador Ron DeSantis de Florida, aunque sus asesores insisten en que no está interesado. Sus ataques a O’Rourke, así como al presidente Biden, se han intensificado.Estos días, Abbott se encuentra dividido entre el enfoque conservador balanceado que le ha ganado popularidad entre los círculos empresariales de Texas y un enfoque intenso en ganar en un Partido Republicano que evoluciona, según entrevistas con muchos asesores y exasesores y más de una veintena de amigos, excolegas, funcionarios electos y estrategas políticos..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-1g3vlj0{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g3vlj0{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-1g3vlj0 strong{font-weight:600;}.css-1g3vlj0 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1g3vlj0{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0.25rem;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Su prohibición a los mandatos de vacunación no fue suficiente para los ultraconservadores que han estado exigiendo una sesión legislativa especial para reglamentar su orden. Al mismo tiempo, negocios y hospitales han avanzado en sus requerimientos de vacunación, planeados o existentes, mientras que el estado ha hecho poco o nada para que la prohibición entre en vigor, indicaron los grupos industriales.Más de 200 vidas se perdieron durante la última tormenta de invierno, que causó cortes en la electricidad en Texas en febrero,Tamir Kalifa para The New York TimesCuando Abbott postuló por primera vez a la gubernatura, en 2014, presentó un rostro más moderado al enfrentarse a la legisladora estatal demócrata Wendy Davis. Un anuncio en español mostraba a su esposa Cecilia, nieta de inmigrantes mexicanos. En otro aparecía en su silla de ruedas —está paralizado de la cintura para abajo después de un accidente en 1984— desplazándose por un mapa para mostrar cómo los negocios se iban de California a Texas.Pero mientras que los republicanos han fortalecido su control del gobierno estatal, Abbott ha enfrentado desafíos de la base de su partido. Este año, Abbott se unió al revoltoso vicegobernador, Dan Patrick, para respaldar quizás las sesiones legislativas más conservadoras en la historia de Texas.Lo ha hecho incluso a pesar de que ya disponía de fondos de campaña por casi 60 millones de dólares y el apoyo anticipado de Trump, quien a menudo llama por teléfono celular al gobernador. (Trump lo ha llamado para ejercer presión por la auditoría del voto de 2020).Ha mantenido una actitud segura y ofrecido asesoría a otros gobernadores republicanos, en especial a los que han sido electos recientemente. Al llegar la pandemia, Abbott organizó llamadas semanales con sus pares para discutir las políticas y los ha liderado a plantar oposición contra la gestión de Biden y crear un enfoque separado, estatal, de justicia penal hacia los migrantes.Y sus ataques agresivos contra Biden en temas fronterizos le han asegurado apariciones regulares en Fox News.“Greg es un conservador archi archi ultraderechista, lo cual sigue sorprendiéndome”, dijo Pearson Grimes, socio en el despacho de abogados en el que Abbott trabajó en los años ochenta después de que la caída de un árbol lo paralizó de la cintura para abajo. Grimes ayudó al futuro gobernador a encontrar un abogado para su demanda por el accidente.“Cuando lo conocí hace mucho”, dijo Grimes, “nunca hubiera imaginado que esta sería su política”.Abbott, quien lleva a cabo pocas conferencias de prensa, rechazó las solicitudes de declarar para este artículo. Renae Eze, su secretaria de prensa lo describió por correo electrónico como “un líder conservador inquebrantable” y “defensor de los derechos constitucionales y fundamentales”, un hombre impulsado por su fe en el “excepcionalismo de Texas” y la necesidad de protegerlo.El expresidente Donald Trump y el gobernador de Texas, Abbott, visitan una sección incompleta del muro fronterizo en Pharr, Texas, en junio de 2021.Eric Gay/Associated PressUna lesión que le cambió la vidaAbbott, de 63 años, nació en el pueblo de Wichita Falls, Texas, una pequeña comunidad al noroeste de Dallas, y luego se mudó a Duncanville, al sur de la ciudad. Su padre murió de un paro cardiaco cuando Abbott estaba en el bachillerato y su madre, que se dedicaba al hogar, se puso a trabajar para mantenerlo a él y a su hermano mayor, Gary, quien es conocido como Bud.Para cuando acudía a la Escuela de Derecho de Vanderbilt, Abbott ya se había casado. Conoció a su esposa en la Universidad de Texas. “Tal como lo recuerdo, en aquellos años no era especialmente político”, dijo Fred Frost, un amigo de la facultad que ahora es el asesor legal ejecutivo de ExxonMobil.Fue cuando trotaba con Frost por el acaudalado barrio de River Oaks en Houston que la vida de Abbott cambió: un roble le cayó encima con tal fuerza que aplastó un Cadillac que estaba cerca. Abbott, quien solo tenía 26 años, perdió la sensibilidad en las piernas de inmediato.Estaba dispuesto a recuperarse. Frost recuerda una noche al salir en Houston que vio a Abbott estacionar su sedán dos puertas color guinda en un restaurante, tomar su silla de ruedas, subirse de un salto y dar la vuelta al lado del pasajero para abrirle la puerta a su esposa.Abbott consiguió un acuerdo que incluye pagos por el resto de su vida, que hasta el momento ascienden a unos 8 millones de dólares. El arreglo no impidió que más tarde Abbott fuera un defensor firme de poner límites a las demandas civiles por lesiones. Cuando era un abogado joven en Houston defendió al sistema municipal de autobuses en casos personales de lesiones.Después del accidente, su silla de ruedas ha quedado entrelazada con su identidad profesional. Como gobernador, le ha permitido conectar con los demás en momentos de tragedia, dijeron sus colaboradores, como sucedió tras el tiroteo masivo de 2019 en un Walmart de El Paso que dejó a 23 personas muertas, o luego del huracán Harvey en 2017.Aún así, a pesar de su historia personal, los analistas políticos en Texas a menudo se lamentan de que Abbott carezca de la gran personalidad de sus predecesores inmediatos: Ann Richards, George W. Bush y Rick Perry.“Es un conservador con ‘c’ minúscula, es decir, cuidadoso”, dijo Robert Stein, profesor de ciencia política de la Universidad de Rice.Abbot se ha erizado ante los desafíos que se le prestan desde la derecha por parte de Don Huffines, un exsenador estatal, y por Allen West, un excongresista por Florida que lideró fugazmente el Partido Republicano de Texas. Aunque los sondeos muestran que Abbott es muy popular entre los votantes republicanos, ha parecido concentrarse en una pequeña cantidad que lo ha abandonado.Incluso antes de empezar su campaña, ya recorría el estado para reunirse con votantes republicanos y organizaba asambleas telefónicas por invitación. A menudo reserva parte de su agenda diaria para dedicar ocho horas a hacer llamadas de recaudación de fondos.El gobernador de Texas, Greg Abbott, reza después de una vigilia en El Paso después de que más de 20 personas murieran en un tiroteo masivo en un Walmart.Ivan Pierre Aguirre/EPA vía ShutterstockLa prueba del primer mandatoUna primera prueba de su liderazgo se presentó durante el primer año de Abbott como gobernador, cuando entre los círculos conservadores se originaron teorías de la conspiración de que un ejercicio militar estadounidense, conocido como Jade Helm 15, en realidad era un plan secreto para invadir Texas. Abbott quería decir algo.“La gente había estado interactuando con él por Twitter”, dijo un asesor. “Se sintió obligado a responder. Para él, esta es la gente de base que participa en la política partidaria. Son los que van y tocan puertas en tu nombre” para hacer campaña.Al final el gobernador decidió enviar a la Guardia Estatal de Texas, que forma parte del departamento militar del estado, a “monitorear” la operación.Para algunos de sus aliados fue un error. Para sus críticos demócratas, fue un momento emblemático de un gobernador que no estaba dispuesto a enfrentar a los marginales de su partido.“Abbott es simplemente un tipo que, en mi opinión, siempre está temiendo algo”, dijo Chris Turner, el líder demócrata en la Cámara de Representantes de Texas.Antes de la pandemia, Abbott había logrado unir al ala afín al empresariado del partido con el extremo más de derecha. Pero en tanto el virus dividió al estado el año pasado, Abbott enfrentó un momento crucial. En julio de 2020 emitió un mandato estatal para usar cubrebocas, una decisión que sus colaboradores dicen que tomó siguiendo su propio lema de ignorar la política y “hacer lo correcto”.A algunos conservadores no les sentó nada bien. La reacción ayudó a impulsar la energía insurgente y le dio una bandera a sus contendientes republicanos.Huffines, su opositor más vocal en las primarias, también empujó al gobernador hacia el muro fronterizo, al pedir que el estado construyera uno en mayo. Para el mes de junio Abbott ya había anunciado que tenía intención de erigir un muro.Y, días antes de que Abbott decidiera prohibir que los negocios exigieran la vacunación obligatoria, Huffines pidió al gobernador que hiciera justo eso. “Ningún texano debería perder su trabajo porque no quieren vacunarse contra la covid”, dijo Huffines en un comunicado de prensa.Abbott ha adoptado políticas idénticas a las de miembros mucho más conservadores de su partido.Callaghan O’Hare para The New York TimesEra el mismo mensaje que los asesores de Abbott dijeron que el gobernador había estado escuchando durante semanas en sus eventos por todo el estado.Cuando Abbott le comunicó a su personal que quería emitir la orden, los asesores dicen que se desató una discusión. Algunos se oponían a la medida. Luego del debate con sus colaboradores, Abbott decidió avanzar con la orden.David Carney, su asesor de campaña, dijo que Abbott quería proteger a los pequeños negocios de tener que despedir a los trabajadores por la política “torpe, incoherente” de requerir vacunación obligatoria para las empresas con 100 o más empleados, que entrará en vigor el 4 de enero y que el mes pasado Abbott desafió en una corte federal.“Esto siempre ha sido impulsado por los pequeños negocios”, dijo Carney, y no por la política republicana.J. David Goodman es el jefe del buró de Houston, que cubre Texas. Ha escrito sobre gobierno, justicia penal y el papel del financiamiento en la política para el Times desde 2012. @jdavidgoodman More

  • in

    The Upcoming Elections That Could Shake Both Parties

    Election Day 2022 is still many months off, but already the primary season is shaping up to be a lulu. So much at stake. So many electrifying candidates — albeit some less evidently qualified than others. (Dr. Oz? Seriously?) And scads to be learned about the unsettling state of American democracy.High-profile races in two crucial swing states promise to be especially enlightening, offering a handy guide to the existential issues roiling the parties. The contrast could hardly be starker.In Pennsylvania, the Democratic fight for a Senate seat features an array of contenders slugging it out over a slew of knotty questions involving policy and ideology, progressivism, populism, centrism and how — or even if — to woo blue-collar whites in deep-purple places.In Georgia, the Republican battle for governor has been reduced to the singular, defining question looming over the whole party: Does the G.O.P. still have room for leaders who aren’t Trump-addled invertebrates?The outcomes of these contests will shake the parties well beyond the states in play.It’s tough to overstate the importance of the Pennsylvania Senate race. With Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, retiring, the state is considered the Democrats’ best hope for picking up a seat and retaining their whip-thin majority. But there is much debate over what kind of candidate has the best shot at victory.The current front-runner is the lieutenant governor, John Fetterman. The former mayor of a busted steel town on the outskirts of Pittsburgh, Mr. Fetterman has been on the national political scene for a while as a champion of Rust Belt populism. His profile shot way up in the wake of last year’s elections, with his frequent media appearances smacking down Donald Trump’s election-fraud lies.When the lieutenant governor talks, it’s hard not to listen. Standing 6-foot-8, he is bald, hulking, goateed and tattooed. He wears work shirts and cargo shorts and radiates an anti-establishment, anti-elitist vibe that his supporters say helps him connect with the rural and blue-collar types who have abandoned the Democrats in recent years. He presents more as a guy you’d see storming the Capitol with his biker pals than a candidate espousing progressive policies like Medicare for all and criminal justice reform.He’s known as a bit of a loner, and not all of his positions play well with progressives. (For instance, he opposes an immediate ban on fracking.) But he was a Bernie backer in 2016, and he is not above poking at his party’s more conservative members. He vows that, if elected, he will not be “a Joe Manchin- or Kyrsten Sinema-type” centrist obstructing President Biden’s agenda.Such criticisms are seen as indirect slaps at Mr. Fetterman’s closest opponent in the race, Representative Conor Lamb. A Marine Corps veteran and former federal prosecutor, Mr. Lamb shocked and thrilled his party by winning a special election in 2018 in a conservative western district that went for Mr. Trump by nearly 20 points in 2016.Mr. Lamb is an unabashed moderate, and his politics and personal style are decidedly more buttoned-down than Mr. Fetterman’s — more high school principal than pro wrestler. He has expressed frustration with his party’s left flank for “advocating policies that are unworkable and extremely unpopular,” such as defunding the police. He speaks kindly of Mr. Manchin, with whom he did a fund-raiser this year. He contends that Mr. Fetterman leans too far left, and he characterizes himself as “a normal Democrat” who can appeal to working-class voters and suburban moderates alike.There are other, lesser-known Democrats in the mix, too. A state lawmaker, Malcolm Kenyatta, hails from North Philly. Young, Black, progressive and gay, with a working-poor background, he has pitched himself as the candidate to energize the party’s base voters, especially those who tend to sit out nonpresidential elections.Commissioner Val Arkoosh of Montgomery County is based in Philadelphia’s upscale, voter-rich suburbs. She leans liberal on policy and has been endorsed by Emily’s List. An obstetric anesthesiologist, she hopes to position herself as a sensible alternative to Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity physician who jumped into the Republican primary contest about two weeks ago. She is also betting that the growing threat to abortion rights will help her rally suburban women, whom she sees as a natural base.Wherever this race ultimately leads, there will be lessons for other Democrats looking to compete in tough battleground areas.The Georgia primary for governor could prove even more clarifying about the state of the G.O.P. — though not in a good way. The Republican incumbent, Brian Kemp, is running for re-election. But he is high on Mr. Trump’s drop-dead list for refusing to help overturn the results of last November’s election.Desperate to see Mr. Kemp unseated, Mr. Trump lobbied former Senator David Perdue, who also lost his re-election bid last cycle, to challenge the governor. Last week, Mr. Perdue entered the race. Mr. Trump promptly endorsed him, slagging Mr. Kemp as “a very weak governor” who “can’t win because the MAGA base — which is enormous — will never vote for him.”This contest is not about Mr. Kemp’s politics or governing chops. Both he and Mr. Perdue are staunch conservatives and fierce partisans. And Mr. Perdue is not some hard-charging outsider looking to overthrow the establishment or push the party to the right or redefine conservatism in some fresh way. In his announcement video, Mr. Perdue blamed Mr. Kemp for dividing Republicans and costing them Georgia’s two Senate seats. “This isn’t personal. It’s simple,” said Mr. Perdue. “He has failed all of us and cannot win in November.”Mr. Perdue is correct that this is simple. But it is also deeply personal — for Mr. Trump. This matchup is about the former president having reduced the G.O.P. to an extension of his own ego, redefining party loyalty as blind fealty to him and his election-fraud lies. Whatever his personal aims, Mr. Perdue is just another tool in Mr. Trump’s vendetta against Republicans he sees as insufficiently servile. The race is expected to be bloody, expensive and highly divisive — all the things parties aim to avoid in a primary.The G.O.P. is already hemorrhaging Trump-skeptical, independent-minded officials at all levels. Just this month, Charlie Baker, the popular Republican governor of deep-blue Massachusetts, announced that he would not run for re-election. If Georgia Republicans take the bait and throw Mr. Kemp over for Mr. Trump’s preferred lickspittle, it will send a clear message to the party’s dwindling pockets of principle and rationality: Get out. Now. While you still have a soul.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