More stories

  • in

    ‘They Have Not Legitimately Won’: Pro-Trump Media Keeps the Disinformation Flowing

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }What to WatchBest Movies on NetflixBest of Disney PlusBest of Amazon PrimeBest Netflix DocumentariesNew on NetflixAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘They Have Not Legitimately Won’: Pro-Trump Media Keeps the Disinformation FlowingOne America News, a Trump favorite, didn’t show its viewers President Biden’s swearing in or his inaugural address.Credit…Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesJan. 20, 2021Updated 8:22 p.m. ETForgoing any appeals for healing or reflection, right-wing media organizations that spread former President Donald J. Trump’s distortions about the 2020 election continued on Wednesday to push conspiracy theories about large-scale fraud, with some predicting more political conflict in the months ahead.The coverage struck a discordant tone, with pro-Trump media and President Biden in a jarring split screen: There was the new president delivering an inaugural address of unity and hope, while his political opponents used their powerful media platforms to rally a resistance against him based on falsehoods and fabrications.For some outlets, like One America News, it was as if Mr. Biden weren’t president at all. The network, a favorite of Mr. Trump’s because of its sycophantic coverage, didn’t show its viewers Mr. Biden’s swearing in or his inaugural address.Rush Limbaugh, broadcasting his weekday radio show a few miles from the Palm Beach retreat where Mr. Trump is spending the first days of his post-presidency, told his millions of listeners on Wednesday that the inauguration of Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris did not make them the rightful winners of the election.“They have not legitimately won yet,” Mr. Limbaugh said, noting that he would be on “thin ice” for making such a claim. He then gave his listeners a false and inflated vote total for Mr. Trump and predicted the Democratic victories would be “fleeting.”“I think they know, with 74 million, maybe 80 million people who didn’t vote for Joe Biden, there is no way they can honestly say to themselves that they represent the power base in the country,” Mr. Limbaugh said.On One America News, viewers saw a lengthy documentary-style segment called “Trump: Legacy of a Patriot” instead of the inauguration. One of the network’s commentators, Pearson Sharp, provided the voice-over and offered only flattering words about the former president while he leveled false claims about voter fraud.Mr. Sharp repeated many of the discredited excuses that have formed the alternate version of events that Mr. Trump and his followers are using to explain his loss. The host claimed, for instance, that Mr. Trump couldn’t have been defeated because he won the bellwether state of Ohio and carried so many more counties than Mr. Biden did. “And yet somehow we’re still expected to believe that Joe Biden got more votes than any president in history,” Mr. Sharp said.Then he issued a rallying cry to Trump supporters. “Now it’s up to the American people to continue President Trump’s fight, or all the progress we’ve made as a nation will quickly unravel,” Mr. Sharp said.OAN personalities were also offering viewers an optimistic vision of a Republican Party that would live on in Mr. Trump’s image. The network’s White House correspondent, Chanel Rion, described Mr. Trump’s farewell remarks from Joint Base Andrews on Wednesday morning as “a temporary goodbye.”“The fight has only just begun,” she said.One OAN anchor discussed the possibility that Mr. Trump could form his own political party and call it the Patriot Party, an idea that other Trump allies have started floating. And there was talk on the network of Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter, challenging Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, when he is up for re-election in 2022.On Newsmax TV, another pro-Trump channel, commentators and guests appeared to be in less denial than their competitors on OAN. But they were no less dismissive of the new president. One questioned Mr. Biden’s appointment of a transgender woman to his cabinet and called the heavy presence of troops in Washington to prevent another uprising of Trump supporters an effort “to further suppress the voice of the American people.”A Newsmax anchor mockingly pointed out the presence of Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, whose personal troubles and business interests became a distraction for his father’s campaign after conservative media outlets published unverified stories about his work in China. “That doesn’t go away,” the anchor said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Democrats, Assuming Power, Face Recalcitrant Republicans

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyNews AnalysisDemocrats, Assuming Power, Face Recalcitrant RepublicansThe looming impeachment trial of President Trump in the Senate also presents a complication for Democrats hoping for a fast start in the Biden era.Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is set to realize his goal of becoming majority leader Wednesday after the presidential inauguration.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 19, 2021, 7:55 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Democrats will take control of both the White House and Congress on Wednesday for the first time in a decade, but they have already discovered the difficulties of governing with so little room to maneuver around Republicans who appear in no mood to cooperate.Even before President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. was sworn in as the new president, a Republican senator put up a roadblock on Tuesday to one of his cabinet nominees, helping deny Mr. Biden the Day 1 confirmation of national security officials that other incoming presidents have taken for granted for decades. And Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who is set to become majority leader, found himself in difficult negotiations with Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and incoming minority leader, over plans for running an evenly split Senate.On top of those hardly trifling issues, the looming impeachment trial of President Trump presents an extraordinary complication for a party that would no doubt prefer to focus on a bold Democratic agenda out of the gate. However it is eventually structured, the trial is certain to sap time, energy and momentum from the opening days of the new Democratic era in Washington.“It does put a wrinkle in the road,” conceded Christopher J. Dodd, a former Democratic senator from Connecticut and a close adviser to Mr. Biden. “I know Joe is disappointed that it will take some time. But the fact of the matter is, what occurred that day was of such significance that to ignore it or treat it in a casual way would only be an invitation for it to happen again.”The Republican resistance comes as Mr. Biden has made clear that he wants to work with both parties to achieve his legislative ambitions and still sees an opportunity for bipartisan consensus in a Senate that has become much more polarized since he left in 2009 after 36 years.Mr. Schumer is set to become majority leader by the narrowest possible margin on Wednesday afternoon after the inauguration of Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and the seating of three new Democratic senators, setting the margin at 50 to 50 with Ms. Harris empowered to cast tiebreaking votes.Dismissing concerns about the implications of the Senate trial for the Biden agenda, Mr. Schumer and his colleagues have said they can manage to do two things at once, conducting the proceeding while advancing Mr. Biden’s nominees and his other priorities.But the Senate has struggled in recent years to do even one thing at once, and experience has shown that presidential impeachments consume a lot of oxygen.Still, Democrats say they have no choice and few reservations about plunging ahead with a trial they see as a crucial element of a national reckoning after the violent Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol and attempt to disrupt the counting of the presidential Electoral College ballots.“We have to send a very strong message that it is unacceptable for a president of the United States to incite a violent mob for the purposes of overturning a democratic election,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland. “I think we can make clear that this conduct has to be held accountable while we can work to open a new chapter.”Mr. Schumer, Mr. Van Hollen and other Democrats insist that the trial of Mr. Trump for inciting the attack can be conducted quickly if Republicans cooperate. They were buoyed on Tuesday by a strong statement from Mr. McConnell, who made clear that he held the president responsible for the violence and said Mr. Trump had “provoked” the mob.Senator Josh Hawley, center, said he would block quick confirmation of the homeland security secretary nominee, an early blow to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s hopes of working with both parties.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesBut even as Mr. McConnell has indicated an openness to allowing the trial to move forward, he was playing hardball in talks with Mr. Schumer on a so-called power sharing arrangement for managing the Senate in the longer term. In a memo to Republican colleagues and in talks with Mr. Schumer, Mr. McConnell said he wanted Democrats to agree not to weaken the filibuster in exchange for his cooperation in cutting a deal that would let Senate committees get down to business.That created a dilemma for Mr. Schumer, who, along with Democratic activists, wants to hold out the idea of eliminating the 60-vote threshold for advancing legislation — which in recent years has allowed the minority party to block most major initiatives — if Republicans uniformly line up against Mr. Biden’s agenda. The Democratic leader’s office urged Mr. McConnell to drop his demand and instead implement a plan developed 20 years ago, when the Senate was evenly divided and the two parties split committees down the middle.“Leader Schumer expressed that the fairest, most reasonable and easiest path forward is to adopt the 2001 bipartisan agreement without extraneous changes from either side,” said Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer.Regardless of how the negotiations go, Mr. McConnell made it clear Tuesday that Republicans had no intention of clearing the way for Democrats’ most cherished progressive priorities.“Certainly November’s elections did not hand any side a mandate for sweeping ideological change,” he said. “Americans elected a closely divided Senate, a closely divided House and a presidential candidate who said he’d represent everyone.”Mr. Biden’s push to have the Senate confirm some of his key nominees as soon as he took the oath Wednesday encountered an obstacle when Senator Josh Hawley, the Missouri Republican who led the challenge to the Electoral College vote, said he would block quick confirmation of Mr. Biden’s secretary of homeland security nominee, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, over immigration concerns.“Mr. Mayorkas has not adequately explained how he will enforce federal law and secure the southern border given President-elect Biden’s promise to roll back major enforcement and security measures,” Mr. Hawley said.His move infuriated Democrats, many of whom blame Mr. Hawley for the Jan. 6 riot that prompted the heightened security concerns that they say require the position to be filled immediately.“I think it really would be disgraceful, and shameful, but unfortunately, Senator Hawley is marching to his own drummer,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, about the delay.The contours of the impeachment trial remain unclear, and even the start date is unknown since Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet presented the Senate with the sole charge. Democrats would like to operate on two tracks and conduct Senate business for part of the day while holding the trial during the remainder — an approach that would require discipline and long hours.But Republicans, some of whom say Democrats have boxed themselves in by insisting on the trial during the crucial opening days of Mr. Biden’s tenure, offered a reminder and a warning Tuesday that impeachment takes center stage in the Senate once a trial begins.“Once she sends the articles of impeachment over, it displaces all other business,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, told reporters on Capitol Hill.While the Senate obviously has its hands full and the new era is not off to the smoothest start, Mr. Schumer, rising to a position he has coveted for years, said Democrats had big plans for their majority.“The next several months will be very busy,” he said, “and a very consequential period for the United States Senate.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    How Gerrymandering Will Protect Republicans Who Challenged the Election

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storypolitical memoHow Gerrymandering Will Protect Republicans Who Challenged the ElectionTaking a position as inflammatory as refusing to certify a fair election would be riskier for G.O.P. lawmakers if they needed to appeal to an electorate beyond their next set of primary voters.Representative Jim Jordan and other Republican members on the House floor last week during the vote on impeaching President Trump.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesReid J. Epstein and Jan. 19, 2021, 7:17 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio comes from a duck-shaped district that stretches across parts of 14 counties and five media markets and would take nearly three hours to drive end to end.Designed after the 2010 census by Ohio Republicans intent on keeping Mr. Jordan, then a three-term congressman, safely in office, the district has produced the desired result. He has won each of his last five elections by at least 22 percentage points.The outlines of Ohio’s Fourth Congressional District have left Mr. Jordan, like scores of other congressional and state lawmakers, accountable only to his party’s electorate in Republican primaries. That phenomenon encouraged the Republican Party’s fealty to President Trump as he pushed his baseless claims of election fraud.That unwavering loyalty was evident on Jan. 6, when Mr. Jordan and 138 other House Republicans voted against certifying Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the winner of the presidential election. Their decision, just hours after a violent mob had stormed the Capitol, has repelled many of the party’s corporate benefactors, exposed a fissure with the Senate Republican leadership and tarred an element of the party as insurrectionists.But while Mr. Trump faces an impeachment trial and potential criminal charges for his role in inciting the rioting, it is unlikely that Mr. Jordan and his compatriots will face any reckoning at the ballot box.Almost all of them are guaranteed to win re-election.Of the 139 House Republicans who voted to object to Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory, 85 come from states in which Republicans will control all levers of the redistricting process this year. An additional 28 represent districts drawn by Republicans in 2011 without Democratic input in states where the G.O.P. still holds majorities in state legislative chambers.Taking a position as inflammatory as refusing to certify a free and fair election would be much riskier for lawmakers in Congress and in statehouses if they needed to appeal to electorates beyond their next sets of primary voters — a group that itself remains loyal to the outgoing president.“With redistricting coming up this year, many members clearly made the decision that the bigger risks they faced were in the primary, and whatever risk they faced in the general election, the next round of gerrymandering would take care of that,” said Michael Li, a senior counsel for the Democracy Center at the Brennan Center for Justice.Not all of the House members who declined to certify the election results were from Republican-controlled states. Representative Mike Garcia of California, from a competitive district north of Los Angeles, voted against certification, as did Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, where the redistricting authority is independent.Representative Mike Garcia, a Republican from a competitive California district, voted against certifying Mr. Biden’s victory.Credit…Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesAnd some political scientists maintain that grass-roots movements and the whims of big donors can be more influential than gerrymandering as a cause for incumbents to drift to more extreme positions.Democrats, too, have been guilty of gerrymandering, particularly in states like Maryland and Illinois, and lawmakers in New Jersey drew a rebuke from national Democrats for their efforts to write a form of gerrymandering into their state Constitution in 2018 (they ultimately withdrew it). But Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering far more frequently, and to greater effect, across the country than have Democrats.With Republicans running strong in November’s down-ballot contests, the party is poised to draw favorable district lines for the next decade, cementing control of state governments and congressional districts in the large battleground states of Georgia, Florida, Ohio and Texas.Republicans control state legislative chambers and governor’s mansions in 23 states; in seven others, including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Republicans control the legislatures, but the governors are Democrats who would most likely veto new district maps, setting up court battles later this year.Mr. Jordan’s district, which snakes from the western Cleveland suburbs south to the Columbus exurbs and then west, nearly touching the Indiana state line, has made him invulnerable to Democratic opponents. It has also made the task of a Republican primary challenge virtually impossible, given the logistical hurdles of building an appeal across an array of otherwise disconnected communities.“It takes two and a half hours to drive from where I live in Oberlin to the farthest point in the district,” said Janet Garrett, a retired kindergarten teacher and a Democrat who ran against Mr. Jordan three times. “The district is shaped like a duck, and I live up in the bill of the duck.”The Republican-drawn maps in Ohio haven’t just insulated Trump allies like Mr. Jordan. They have also resulted in an emboldened state Legislature that has aggressively pushed back against efforts by the Republican governor, Mike DeWine, to combat the coronavirus. Republican lawmakers pushed out Mr. DeWine’s public health director, sought to have Mr. DeWine criminally charged over his imposition of statewide public health restrictions and late last year filed articles of impeachment against Mr. DeWine.The political atmosphere in Ohio has left Republicans striving hard to stress their Trump loyalties while leaving Democrats demoralized.“It’s very hard to recruit candidates — they basically know that they can’t win,” said David Pepper, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. “Even if they were running in 2020, the outcome of their race was determined in 2011 when the map was finalized.”Though both parties have gerrymandered some congressional districts in states across the country, the current maps favor Republicans; as a result, they have to win a smaller share of votes nationally in order to maintain control of the House, and therefore the speakership.“There’s a substantial bias favoring Republicans in the House,” said Nick Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard Law School. “When Democrats win the popular vote by three or four points, like they did in the last election, they barely, barely win control of the House. If Republicans were to win the national vote by three or four points, they would have a very large majority in the House, as they did in 2014.”He continued, “Absolutely, at the moment, gerrymandering is artificially suppressing the numbers of Democratic votes in the House.”The protections afforded by partisan gerrymandering extend even further in state legislative races, where the lack of national attention has allowed some Republican-controlled legislatures to build significant advantages into the maps, even though a statewide party breakdown might favor Democrats.Take Michigan. It has often been a reliably Democratic state when it comes to statewide federal elections, having elected only Democratic U.S. senators since 2001 and having voted for Democrats for president every election since 1988, except for 2016.But Republicans have controlled the State House since 2008 and the State Senate since 1990. While there can often be a discrepancy between federal and state elections, the advantage Michigan Republicans hold in the State House often extends even beyond the normal variances in state elections.In 2020, for instance, the vote share for State House races in Michigan was essentially a 50-50 split between the two parties, according to data from The Associated Press, with Republicans holding a slim 14,000-vote lead. But Republicans retained a 58-52 advantage in the House, or a split of roughly a 53 percent to 47 percent.A State Senate Republican committee hearing in Gettysburg, Pa., in November on efforts to overturn presidential election results.r Credit…Julio Cortez/Associated PressSimilar advantages were evident in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, in ways that proved favorable to Mr. Trump. Republican-controlled legislatures in both of those states, as well as Michigan, held hearings into the election following pressure from Mr. Trump and his allies, with Democrats and election experts condemning the evidence-free sessions as feckless attempts to please the president.“If you didn’t have the gerrymandering in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, you might well have Democratic control of those legislatures,” said Mr. Stephanopoulos, the Harvard professor, “and with Democratic control of the legislatures, they never would have tried to suppress voting or delayed the processing of the ballots or considered any of Trump’s various schemes to overturn the election.”As for Mr. Jordan, he received a coveted shout-out from Mr. Trump during the Jan. 6 rally that precipitated the Capitol riot.“For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans,” Mr. Trump said. “And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting.”Five days later, Mr. Trump awarded Mr. Jordan the Presidential Medal of Freedom.Annie Daniel More

  • in

    ‘What Kind of Message Is That?’: How Republicans See the Attack on the Capitol

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyThe DailySubscribe:Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcasts‘What Kind of Message Is That?’: How Republicans See the Attack on the Capitol We spoke to fans of President Trump about the Capitol riot and their feelings before Joe Biden’s inauguration.Hosted by Michael Barbaro; produced by Alix Spiegel, Luke Vander Ploeg, Stella Tan, Sydney Harper and Daniel Guillemette; edited by Lisa Chow and Lisa Tobin; and engineered by Chris Wood.More episodes ofThe DailyJanuary 19, 2021  •  More

  • in

    The Next Trump

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Next TrumpThere is no one quite like him in the Republican Party. So where should we look for the president’s inheritors?Opinion ColumnistJan. 19, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesMost Americans want Donald Trump out of sight and out of mind after he leaves office on Wednesday. Most Americans except Republicans, that is.In every recent poll on Trump, Republicans stand apart. Ask whether Trump should remain a “major national figure for years to come,” as the Pew Research Center did in a survey taken just after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and 68 percent of Americans say no, whereas 57 percent of Republicans say yes.Or ask whether Trump should be disqualified from future office. A majority of adults — 56 percent, according to a recent poll conducted for ABC News and The Washington Post — also say yes, whereas 85 percent of Republicans say no.Of course, the reason the Republican rank and file doesn’t think Trump should slink away is because they think he won the election. Among his voters, 75 percent say he received enough votes in enough states to claim victory. For them, there’s no reason Trump should leave the field as a pariah or relinquish his claim on the party itself. It’s no surprise, then, that most Republican officeholders are sticking with the president and that the most loyal among them hope to harness the pro-Trump energy of the base for their own personal ambitions.This dynamic is part of what spurred Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to amplify the lie that the election was tainted. It’s what kept Mike Pence from turning on the president that made him the target of a deadly mob, and it’s what led Mike Pompeo to turn on his former administration colleague Nikki Haley, for criticizing Trump’s rhetoric since the election.Each of them (to say nothing of the party’s other presidential contenders) all hope to be, in one way or another, the next Trump. The problem for each of them is that this may be impossible.In 2015 and 2016, Donald Trump wasn’t just an unconventional politician with a direct appeal to the prejudiced attitudes of the Republican base, and he wasn’t just a fixture of conservative media and entertainment. He was a bona fide celebrity and household name, with 30 years on the public stage as the embodiment of wealth and luxury. And for more than 10 of those years, he was star of “The Apprentice,” a popular reality television series in which he played the most successful businessman in America, whose approval could turn an ordinary nobody into an extraordinary somebody. His was a persona that rested on the valorization of entrepreneurship and the worship of success.This wasn’t a dour or self-serious performance. Trump wasn’t Ebenezer Scrooge. He was a winking, cheerful vulgarian who knew the show was an act and played along with the viewers. From his cameos on the big screen in films like “Home Alone 2” to his parodic appearances in professional wrestling, he was affable, even charming.It’s hard to overstate how important this was for Trump’s first campaign. If modern American politics is entertainment as much as civics, then Trump was its star performer. And his audience, his supporters, could join in the performance. This is crucial. Trump could say whatever they wanted to hear, and they could take it in as part of the act, something — as one sympathetic observer wrote — to be taken seriously, not literally. Words that might have doomed any other Republican candidate, and which have in the past, meant nothing to the strength of Trump’s campaign.When he finally ran against Hillary Clinton, celebrity helped him appeal to those voters who hated politicians — who sat at the margins of politics, if they participated at all — but could get behind an irreverent figure like Trump. Did he lie? Sure. But the shamelessness of his lies, and his indifference to decorum, was its own kind of truth. Celebrity was his shield and his sword, and his life as a reality television star primed his supporters to see his presidency as a show that would never end.Since the 1990s, the Republican Party has struggled to win a majority of voters nationwide in a presidential election. They’ve done it exactly once, in 2004, with the re-election of George W. Bush. Trump’s path to victory — a minority-vote Electoral College win with high turnout in rural and exurban areas — may be the only one the party has left. As one group of House Republicans said ahead (and in support) of the vote to confirm the results of the 2020 election,If we perpetuate the notion that Congress may disregard certified electoral votes — based solely on its own assessment that one or more states mishandled the presidential election — we will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024.The big question is whether it took a Trump to make 2016 happen in the first place. Given the Republican Party’s struggle to build a national majority, was he the only candidate that could pull off a win? And if so, was his celebrity the X factor that made it possible? The fact that Republicans lost when Trump was not on the ballot is evidence in favor of the case.If celebrity is what it takes, then there’s no Republican politician who can carry Trump’s mantle. No one with his or her hat obviously in the ring — neither Cruz nor Hawley, neither Tom Cotton nor Haley — has the juice. There are the Trump children, of course. But the Trump name doesn’t actually stand for success, and there’s no evidence yet that any of them can make the leap to winning votes for themselves.Perhaps the next Trump, if there is one, will be another celebrity. Someone with a powerful and compelling persona, who traffics in fear and anger and hate. Someone who “triggers the libs” and puts on a show. Someone who already has an audience, who speaks for the Republican base as much as he speaks to them. Republican voters have already put a Fox News viewer into the White House. From there it’s just a short step to electing an actual Fox News personality.What are your hopes for the next four years?It could be a better economy, a personal milestone or an ambitious policy. Tell us what you’re hoping will happen during the Biden administration. We may include your responses in a special feature publishing on Inauguration Day.

    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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Why Rage Over the 2020 Election Could Last Well Past Trump

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy Rage Over the 2020 Election Could Last Well Past TrumpThe vast majority of Americans do not approve of the riot at the Capitol. But experts warn that the widespread belief there was election fraud, while false, could have dangerous, lasting effects.Polls indicate that only a small fraction of Americans approved of the riot in Washington last week. Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York TimesJan. 18, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — For many Trump supporters, the inauguration of Joseph R. Biden Jr. this week will be a signal that it is time to move on. The president had four years, but Mr. Biden won, and that is that.But for a certain slice of the 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump, the events of the past two weeks — the five deaths, including of a Capitol Police officer, the arrests that have followed, and the removal of Mr. Trump and right-wing extremists from tech platforms — have not had a chastening effect.On the contrary, interviews in recent days show that their anger and paranoia have only deepened, suggesting that even after Mr. Trump leaves the White House, an embrace of conspiracy theories and rage about the 2020 election will live on, not just among extremist groups but among many Americans.“I can’t just sit back and say, ‘OK, I’ll just go back to watching football,’” said Daniel Scheerer, 43, a fuel truck driver in Grand Junction, Colo., who went to the rally in Washington last week, but said he did not go inside the Capitol and had nothing to do with those who did. He said he did not condone those who were violent, but believed that the news media has “totally skewed” the event, obscuring what he sees as the real story of the day — the people’s protest against election fraud.“If we tolerate a fraudulent election, I believe we cease to have a republic,” he said. “We turn into a totalitarian state.”Asked what would happen after Mr. Biden took office, Mr. Scheerer said: “That’s where every person has to soul search.”Trump campaign billboards displayed along Texas State Highway 71 near La Grange, Texas, on Election Day. Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesHe continued: “This just isn’t like a candidate that I didn’t want, but he won fair and square. There’s something different happening here. I believe it needs to be resisted and fought against.”Mr. Scheerer said he was not advocating violence, nor was he part of any group that was. But he echoed the views of many who supported the events in Washington last week: A fervent belief that something bad was about to happen, and an instinct to fight against it.Polls indicate that only a small fraction of Americans approved of the riot in Washington last week. A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 8 percent of adults and 15 percent of Republicans support “the actions of people who stormed the U.S. Capitol last week to protest Biden’s election as president.” That is far from most voters, but enough to show that the belief in a stolen election has entered the American bloodstream and will not be easy to stop.“It’s a dangerous situation,” said Lucan Way, a political scientist at the University of Toronto who writes about authoritarian regimes. “The ‘election was stolen’ narrative has become part of the political landscape.”The country’s political divide is no longer a disagreement over issues like guns and abortion but a fundamental difference in how people see reality. That, in turn, is driving more extremist beliefs. This shift has been years in the making, but it went into hyper-speed after the Nov. 3 election as Mr. Trump and many in his party encouraged Americans, despite all the evidence to the contrary, to believe the results were fraudulent. The belief is still common among Republicans: A Quinnipiac poll published Monday found that 73 percent still falsely believe there was widespread voter fraud.Now, with Mr. Biden’s inauguration on Wednesday and so many Americans enraged about the election, state capitals and Washington are on high alert, with soldiers and security perimeters, bracing for further acts of violence.“Polarization is not the problem anymore,” said Lilliana Mason, a political psychologist at the University of Maryland. “Now it’s the threat to democracy.”When Professor Mason began surveying people in 2017 about their tolerance for political violence for a book on partisanship, she did not expect to find much. Partisanship was always seen as an inert, harmless thing, she said, a way to get people interested in the otherwise boring topic of politics.She was wrong. She and her co-author, Nathan Kalmoe, found that the share of Americans who say it is “at least a little bit justified” to engage in violence for political reasons has doubled in three years, rising to 20 percent after the election, from 10 percent in 2017. The trend was the same for both Republicans and Democrats. But the election was a catalyzing event: The Republicans who said they condoned violence became more approving after it, Professor Mason said. Democrats stayed about the same.State capitals and Washington are on high alert, with soldiers and security perimeters, bracing for further acts of violence.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesProfessor Mason said she worried that more violence and attacks on elected leaders and state Capitols could be coming, saying the country could be in for a period like the Troubles, the conflict in Northern Ireland in which sectarian violence kept the region unstable for 30 years.In interviews with Mr. Trump’s more fervent supporters, people expressed a pattern of falsehoods and fears about the coming Biden administration. As events like the riot have raced ahead, so have conspiracy theories explaining them. They have blossomed in the exhausting monotony of coronavirus lockdowns.Theda Kasner, 83, a retired medical worker from Marshfield, Wis., who was originally interviewed for a New York Times polling story before the election, has been in an R.V. park in Weslaco, Texas, near the border with Mexico, since December. She is spending the winter there with her husband, for the sun and the beaches nearby. But the coronavirus is roaring through, and this week, their R.V. park went on lockdown.“I told my husband today, I said ‘I’m going stir crazy,’” she said. “We are practically quarantined in our units.”She has been spending lots of time in her motor home reading books and watching videos. One featured rousing, emotional music and footage of Mr. Trump and crowds of his supporters, with a voice talking darkly about a looming confrontation. It ended with the Lord’s Prayer and the date Jan. 20, 2021, flashing on the screen. Another, 48 minutes long, was of Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, an inventor, testifying before the Georgia State Senate about election fraud. She and her husband watch Newsmax TV, a right-wing network, in the evenings.When asked about the violence at the riot, Ms. Kasner repeated the common conspiracy theory that antifa had infiltrated the crowd. These days, she is finding herself increasingly confused in a sea of information, much of it false.She had heard on a video she was sent on Facebook that in the Biden administration, children could be taken away from their parents. “I am in a total state of, I don’t know what is happening,” Ms. Kasner said.A supporter of President Trump during the vote count at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia in November.Credit…Victor J. Blue for The New York Times“I simply cannot fathom what my country is becoming,” she said, saying that she had been sitting in her home in tears. For Mr. Scheerer, the fuel truck driver in Colorado, the multiple catastrophes of the past year — the coronavirus, the economic disruption that came with it, the political fear across the country — all fused into a kind of looming threat. The lockdowns infuriated him. He sees mask mandates not as public health but public control. Both, he believed, were signs of a coming tyranny. He left a truck-driving job he liked when, by his account, his boss told him he had to wear a mask or leave.Then came the election. On Jan. 6, he arrived in Washington for the rally to protest the results. Afterward, when pressed on how he felt about the event given the number of white supremacists in the riot, he said that they were only a fraction of the people there. Anyway, he said, their presence was insignificant compared the broader issue of fraud. “It’s way more than just being some kind of a Trump fanatic,” he said. He said he sees himself as “a guy up on the wall of a city seeing the enemy coming, and ringing the alarm bell.”Force he said, is only a last resort.“Are you OK with internment camps if you refuse to wear a mask or take a vaccination?” he asked. “I believe in a world where force has to be used to stop evil or the wrong act.”The inauguration stage in front of the U.S. Capitol Building.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times In western North Carolina, Kevin Haag, a retired landscaper who was at the Capitol last week but did not go inside, said people in his conservative community have grown increasingly alarmed about what has happened in the days since. His electric power company, Duke Energy, has announced it would pause donations for Republicans who voted against certifying the election results. It all feels like a vast piling on against Trump supporters, he said.To top it off, the Senate, the House and the White House now belong to Democrats.“Now it’s pretty scary, people are alarmed, they own it all now,” said Mr. Haag, who was first quoted in a Times story about the December rally in Washington for Mr. Trump. Mr. Haag, who is 67, is also a member of his local town council.In a telephone conversation this week, he said he is part of a group called the Armed Patriots, people from his area whose purpose, he said, is to protect the community. On Tuesday night, the group met, he said, and invited the public for a gun instruction session with two experts who talked about how to use an assault rifle. Sixty people attended, he said, including women.They also held a raffle of a gun to raise money for a website, he said, “because they are taking down our communications.”The meeting, he said, “was to educate and to relieve fear.”Mr. Haag insisted that the group was not a militia.“We are not here to take over the country,” he said. “If that’s what you are here for, we are not your group. We are here to protect our citizens and to stand up for our country.”He said he was still hoping that Mr. Trump would be the one to be inaugurated this week. But even if Mr. Trump did not succeed, the movement, he said, would continue.“It’s not about Trump, he was just championing the cause,” he said. “We don’t have Trump around right now, and we are picking up the ball and running with it ourselves.”Kitty Bennett contributed research.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    In Minnesota, a G.O.P. Lawmaker’s Death Brings Home the Reality of Covid

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesVaccine InformationF.A.Q.TimelineAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyIn Minnesota, a G.O.P. Lawmaker’s Death Brings Home the Reality of CovidMinnesota Republicans celebrated election victories with a gala party. A state senator’s death from Covid-19 underlined the consequences of the G.O.P.’s rejection of health experts’ guidance.Dana Relph’s father, State Senator Jerry Relph of Minnesota, died from Covid-19 after attending a celebratory dinner with other Republicans following Election Day. Credit…Caroline Yang for The New York TimesJan. 18, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETRepublicans in the Minnesota State Senate were feeling jubilant after the November election. They had held onto a slim majority following an onslaught by Democrats trying to win control. Now, it was time to party.More than 100 senators, their spouses and their staff members gathered for a celebratory dinner at a catering hall outside the Twin Cities on Nov. 5, two days after Election Day. Masks were offered to guests on arrival, but there was little mask wearing over hours of dining and drinking, at a moment when a long-predicted surge in coronavirus infections was gripping the state.At least four senators in attendance tested positive for Covid-19 in the days that followed. One was the Republican majority leader, Paul Gazelka, the state’s most outspoken opponent of mask mandates and shutdown orders during the pandemic. He compared his symptoms to a “moderate flu” and recovered. So did two other senators who had tested positive after the dinner.“Our future cannot be prolonged isolation, face coverings and limited activities,” Mr. Gazelka said defiantly in announcing his positive test.The fourth was Senator Jerry Relph, a Vietnam veteran and grandfather from St. Cloud, Minn. Struggling to breathe after testing positive for the coronavirus, he was admitted to a hospital in mid-November. He died on Dec. 18, at age 76.His daughter Dana Relph, who watched her father fight the disease as well as the cruel isolation it forces on patients and families, is still furious at Republican leaders for holding the dinner and the refusal of Mr. Gazelka to take responsibility.Mr. Relph died on Dec. 18 after being admitted to a hospital in mid-November.Credit…Glen Stubbe/Star Tribune, via Associated Press“Why are you throwing a party with 100-plus people in the middle of a pandemic?” said Ms. Relph, 44, who was not allowed to visit her father until the day he died. “Why would you choose to do that when we know people are going to be eating and drinking and taking their masks off, where their inhibitions will be lowered? Why would you even consider that responsible behavior?”Mr. Gazelka declined an interview request, and a spokeswoman said he would not respond to Ms. Relph “out of respect for privacy requested from the family.”Ten months into the coronavirus crisis, the ongoing Republican resistance to mask wearing and social distancing is a striking political phenomenon: G.O.P. officials have abetted the spread of the virus to friends and colleagues, even fatally so, because they don’t take the science seriously.Four Democratic members of Congress tested positive this month after being in lockdown at the Capitol on Jan. 6 with Republicans who refused to wear masks. Luke Letlow, just elected to Congress as a freshman Republican from Louisiana, died of Covid-19 in December, days before he was to be sworn in. According to the election data site Ballotpedia, six state lawmakers have died from Covid-19, including the speaker of the New Hampshire State House and a Virginia state senator who succumbed on New Year’s Day. All six were Republicans.G.O.P. officials and voters have amplified President Trump’s misinformation about risk factors. After two packed campaign rallies in Minnesota for the president over the summer, defying state orders and federal guidelines, coronavirus cases spiked in the surrounding counties.And while Republicans insist that their freedom was at issue in refusing to wear masks or enforce mandates, such events and the death of Mr. Relph raise urgent questions as to where individual “freedom” ends and where responsibility to others begins in a pandemic during which breathing shared air can be fatal.“It’s ironic that Senator Gazelka, as majority leader, was always the person most outspoken in opposing the governor’s emergency order and would state to us over and over again that Minnesotans would do the responsible thing,” said Richard Cohen, a Democrat who retired from the Legislature last month. “And now it is alleged that because of a caucus event, where apparently many people were not wearing masks, a caucus member became ill and then passed away.”An owner of the catering hall, John Schiltz, said that his servers had worn masks and gloves throughout that evening, and that none had later tested positive. Although masks were offered to guests, state guidelines at the time allowed them to be removed at tables.Mr. Schiltz said the dinner was the only event any group had booked at his venue in November before he had to close on Nov. 20. As of that date, Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, restricted bars and restaurants to takeout and delivery service only amid a surge in virus cases, hospitalizations and deaths.Paul Gazelka, the leader of the Republican majority in the Minnesota State Senate, spoke outside the State Capitol in October.Credit…Leila Navidi/Star Tribune, via Associated PressPressed about the dinner in a radio interview in late November, Mr. Gazelka, 61, who is reported to be considering a run for governor, said he had no regrets.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • in

    Trump Isn’t Out the Door Yet

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Covid-19 VaccinesVaccine QuestionsWhich States are Increasing AccessRollout by StateHow 9 Vaccines WorkAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe conversationTrump Isn’t Out the Door YetBut after a few terrible weeks, there are reasons for Americans to be cautiously optimistic.Gail Collins and Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens are opinion columnists. They converse every week.Jan. 18, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Damon Winter/The New York TimesBret Stephens: Gail, given what’s happened in the past two weeks, Martin Luther King Jr. Day feels particularly meaningful this year. It seems as if the country is just holding its breath, waiting for the next Capitol Hill mob to descend, somewhere, somehow, on something or someone.Is this 1968 all over again, or do you feel any sense of optimism?Gail: Well Bret, I was actually around in 1968 — politically speaking.Bret: Ah, but do you actually remember it?Gail: There were certainly a lot of … distractions, what with a cultural revolution around every corner. And a terrible string of assassinations — after King, I can remember when Robert Kennedy was killed in June, feeling like nobody was safe from crazy people and right-wing racists.Bret: Now it’s like déjà vu all over again. Donald Trump spent five years stoking the paranoia and loathing of his crowds, and now it has been unleashed. We’ll be living with it for years.Gail: But here’s the other thing. I remember in the 1970s, when I had a news service in Connecticut, listening to the state Legislature arguing vehemently about whether King deserved a holiday. It was controversial, even in the Northeast.Now, we’re a different nation. On the dark side we have crazy people publicizing bring-your-own AR-15 rifle rallies. We have appalling racists conspiring with each other on the internet. But on the other hand, we live in a multiracial society that agrees, at least in theory, that everybody is equal. Even though, I know, the acting out part can be terrible.Bret: Very true. The other day I was reading a dazzling essay in Tablet Magazine by its editor, Alana Newhouse, called “Everything Is Broken.” Alana is a brilliant thinker, but one of my own thoughts after reading her piece was: “Everything? Really?”We’re so fixated on what is wrong today that we forget how much was far more wrong 50 years ago. We have serious racial problems today. They were a whole lot worse when King was murdered. We have this terrible pandemic. Unlike in 1968, we also have the medical know-how to develop a vaccine in less than a year. We breathe cleaner air than we did 50 years ago, fly safer planes, drive better cars and watch better TV (though literature has gotten considerably worse). Women have choices, opportunities and role models today that were only being dreamed about 50 years ago. We have a polarized and angry electorate, but probably not as polarized as it was when George Wallace won 46 electoral votes, the Vietnam War was raging and the draft was still in effect. In 1968 Richard Nixon was on his way into the White House. In 2021 Donald Trump is on his way out.Gail: Yeah, and in 1968, as far as the world knew, the only gay celebrity in America was Sal Mineo.Bret: That, too. It’s not like we don’t have terrible problems. But I take a lot of comfort in a few things. Donald Trump lost the popular vote by seven million votes. The Capitol Hill barbarians are being tracked down and arrested. Mike Pence didn’t pull a Tammy Wynette and stand by his man. And Joe Biden, centered and sane, is about to become president.In other words, I’m not throwing in the towel on America. We are more resilient than we’ve probably seemed to the outside world in recent years..css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-1sjr751{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1sjr751 a:hover{border-bottom:1px solid #dcdcdc;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-k59gj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;width:100%;}.css-1e2usoh{font-family:inherit;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;border-top:1px solid #ccc;padding:10px 0px 10px 0px;background-color:#fff;}.css-1jz6h6z{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;text-align:left;}.css-1t412wb{box-sizing:border-box;margin:8px 15px 0px 15px;cursor:pointer;}.css-hhzar2{-webkit-transition:-webkit-transform ease 0.5s;-webkit-transition:transform ease 0.5s;transition:transform ease 0.5s;}.css-t54hv4{-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-1r2j9qz{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-e1ipqs{font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;padding:0px 30px 0px 0px;}.css-e1ipqs a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-e1ipqs a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1o76pdf{visibility:show;height:100%;padding-bottom:20px;}.css-1sw9s96{visibility:hidden;height:0px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1prex18{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;font-family:’nyt-franklin’,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:left;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1prex18{padding:20px;}}.css-1prex18:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}Covid-19 Vaccines ›Answers to Your Vaccine QuestionsWhile the exact order of vaccine recipients may vary by state, most will likely put medical workers and residents of long-term care facilities first. If you want to understand how this decision is getting made, this article will help.Life will return to normal only when society as a whole gains enough protection against the coronavirus. Once countries authorize a vaccine, they’ll only be able to vaccinate a few percent of their citizens at most in the first couple months. The unvaccinated majority will still remain vulnerable to getting infected. A growing number of coronavirus vaccines are showing robust protection against becoming sick. But it’s also possible for people to spread the virus without even knowing they’re infected because they experience only mild symptoms or none at all. Scientists don’t yet know if the vaccines also block the transmission of the coronavirus. So for the time being, even vaccinated people will need to wear masks, avoid indoor crowds, and so on. Once enough people get vaccinated, it will become very difficult for the coronavirus to find vulnerable people to infect. Depending on how quickly we as a society achieve that goal, life might start approaching something like normal by the fall 2021.Yes, but not forever. The two vaccines that will potentially get authorized this month clearly protect people from getting sick with Covid-19. But the clinical trials that delivered these results were not designed to determine whether vaccinated people could still spread the coronavirus without developing symptoms. That remains a possibility. We know that people who are naturally infected by the coronavirus can spread it while they’re not experiencing any cough or other symptoms. Researchers will be intensely studying this question as the vaccines roll out. In the meantime, even vaccinated people will need to think of themselves as possible spreaders.The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is delivered as a shot in the arm, like other typical vaccines. The injection won’t be any different from ones you’ve gotten before. Tens of thousands of people have already received the vaccines, and none of them have reported any serious health problems. But some of them have felt short-lived discomfort, including aches and flu-like symptoms that typically last a day. It’s possible that people may need to plan to take a day off work or school after the second shot. While these experiences aren’t pleasant, they are a good sign: they are the result of your own immune system encountering the vaccine and mounting a potent response that will provide long-lasting immunity.No. The vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer use a genetic molecule to prime the immune system. That molecule, known as mRNA, is eventually destroyed by the body. The mRNA is packaged in an oily bubble that can fuse to a cell, allowing the molecule to slip in. The cell uses the mRNA to make proteins from the coronavirus, which can stimulate the immune system. At any moment, each of our cells may contain hundreds of thousands of mRNA molecules, which they produce in order to make proteins of their own. Once those proteins are made, our cells then shred the mRNA with special enzymes. The mRNA molecules our cells make can only survive a matter of minutes. The mRNA in vaccines is engineered to withstand the cell’s enzymes a bit longer, so that the cells can make extra virus proteins and prompt a stronger immune response. But the mRNA can only last for a few days at most before they are destroyed.Gail: Once again we are on the same page, which makes me feel compelled to turn it and ask, How do you feel about Joe Biden’s agenda?Bret: A mixed bag. The best part is the promise to speed delivery of the vaccine, above all to the elderly. Ideally, by March, anyone who was born before, say, 1956, should be able to get a shot at their nearest pharmacy or stadium parking lot. And of course we need to continue helping small businesses, self-employed people, nonprofits, schools and so on to get through the next few months.Gail: So far we are in accord …Bret: Then again, to adapt Everett Dirksen’s old line: a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we’re talking real money. The government has already spent about $4 trillion on pandemic relief. Now Biden wants to spend another $1.9 trillion. I’m no deficit hawk, but there has to be some limit to how much a government can print, borrow and spend without creating serious problems for itself and posterity. I also have my doubts about some of Biden’s other ideas, like raising the minimum wage to $15, since a lot of the hardest hit businesses — restaurants in particular — will struggle with the extra labor costs.My biggest fear is that this becomes a new normal and government spending as a percentage of G.D.P. rises to French-style levels, with French-style economic results, but without French-style joie de vivre.I’m guessing you’re much more of a fan than I am.Gail: Well, yeah. We’re in a multiple crisis here. The country is in the throes of a pandemic, and Washington can’t expect everyone to go out and get a job or start a business when everyone is supposed to stay home as much as possible.Bret: Don’t get me wrong: I’m quibbling more than I’m quarreling. The pandemic put whole sectors of the economy on the edge of bankruptcy, and I’m all for heavy spending in an emergency. But the money should be well spent, unlike in 2009 when all those “shovel ready” projects we were promised never seemed to materialize. And we should be spending money on the people who need it most, not sending $1,400 more to most Americans.Gail: I agree about the upper-income folks. If you want to see the money plowed directly into the economy — not shoveled into savings accounts — the lower the income of the recipients the better. The Biden plan looks like it’ll be sending income-boosters for even many upper-middle-class families. I suspect I’ll support whatever he comes up with, but lower-income households not only need more money, they spend it faster, rather than stashing it away in banks in a way that won’t do anything much to boost the economy.Bret: Dear God we agree again.Gail: And about the “shovel ready” projects: Getting infrastructure projects going was one of Biden’s jobs in the Obama White House. Can’t say he was always perfectly successful, but he’s definitely a guy with practical experience.Bret: In the meantime, Gail, I bet you’d never find yourself cheering Liz Cheney. Her vote for impeachment read like the opening salvo in the Republican Conscience Recovery Act of 2021.Gail: Yes, but 147 of her fellow Republicans voted to overturn the results of the election. The party has a long way to go before it’s returned to the world of sanity.Bret: I know. The words for those Republicans are “nauseating,” “revolting” and “emetic.”Gail: First thing on the agenda: Republican leaders have to bring the party into a true reality-based, post-Trump world. Who do you think can do it?Bret: Probably someone who isn’t now in political life. With all of my newfound admiration for Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger, they aren’t the ones. Should we ask our colleague Ross Douthat to volunteer?The larger question in my mind is whether the G.O.P. is the village that must be destroyed in order to be saved, or, alternatively, is it like a group of previously reasonable people who got taken in by a cult and now must go through some kind of deprogramming so that they can lead normal lives again? My hope is that once Republicans realize that Trump was both a moral and political disaster for them, they might recover their senses.I’d put the chance of that at around one in three.Gail: Totally agree. If the Republicans would only come around to your way of thinking on this, the nation would be a happier place.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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More