Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Fundamentalists Love Trump

      by

      I just finished reading Tim Alberta’s masterly new book, “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.” It’s a powerful and emotionally resonant account of the transformation in evangelical politics that has brought us to the current moment: A godless man, Donald Trump, may now possess more devoted support from white evangelical Christians than any other president in the history of the United States. And most worrisome of all, that support is now disproportionately concentrated among the most churchgoing segment of the Republican electorate.One of the troubling aspects of the Trump era for me, as a churchgoing evangelical, has been watching the evolution of his support among white evangelicals. During the 2016 primaries, I took some solace in the fact that Trump’s support seemed to decline the more a voter went to church. According to the 2016 American National Election Studies Pilot Study, he received majority support from white evangelicals who seldom or never attended church, but he received barely over a third of the votes of white evangelicals who attended weekly.As we headed into the general election, a self-justifying narrative emerged. Countless churchgoing evangelicals told friends and neighbors that Trump had been their last choice among Republicans but that they had to vote for him against Hillary Clinton as the only pro-life option remaining.Soon enough, however, the churchgoing dynamic flipped. I noticed the change among people I knew before I saw it in the data. After Trump won, folks in the pews warmed up to him considerably, especially those who were most firmly ensconced in evangelical America. Most home-schooling families I knew became militantly pro-Trump. I watched many segments of Christian media become militantly pro-Trump. And I always noticed the same trend: the more fundamentalist the Christians, the more likely they were to be all in.Then the data started to confirm my observations. In 2018, Paul Djupe, a Denison University professor, and Ryan Burge, a statistician and associate professor at Eastern Illinois University, reported that Republican approval for Trump was positively correlated with church attendance: The more often people went to church, the more likely they were to strongly approve of Trump. By 2020, white evangelicals who attended church monthly or more were more likely to support Trump than evangelical voters who attended rarely or not at all.I’m certainly not arguing that all regular churchgoers are fundamentalists, but in my experience fundamentalists are virtually always regular churchgoers. To understand why they support Trump, it’s important to understand fundamentalism more broadly and to understand how Trump fits so neatly within the culture of fundamentalist Christianity.For some readers, that might be a head-spinning idea. How on earth could a secular, twice-divorced, philandering reality television star fit in neatly with fundamentalist Christians? It makes no sense until you understand that the true distinction between fundamentalism and mainstream beliefs isn’t what fundamentalists believe but how fundamentalists believe. As Richard Land, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, once told me, “Fundamentalism is far more a psychology than a theology.” That’s why, for example, you can have competing Christian fundamentalisms, competing Muslim fundamentalisms and secular movements that possess fundamentalist characteristics.I grew up in a church that most would describe as fundamentalist, and I’ve encountered fundamentalism of every stripe my entire life. And while fundamentalist ideas can often be quite variable and complex, I’ve never encountered a fundamentalist culture that didn’t combine three key traits: certainty, ferocity and solidarity.Certainty is the key building block. The fundamentalist mind isn’t clouded by doubt. In fact, when people are fully captured by the fundamentalist mind-set, they often can’t even conceive of good-faith disagreement. To fundamentalists, their opponents aren’t just wrong but evil. Critics are derided as weak or cowards or grifters. Only a grave moral defect can explain the failure to agree.That certainty breeds ferocity. Indeed, ferocity — not piety — is a principal trait of every truly fundamentalist movement I’ve ever encountered. Ferocity is so valuable to fundamentalism that it can cover a multitude of conventional Christian sins. Defending Trump in 2016, Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Dallas, an evangelical megachurch, explained, “Frankly, I want the meanest, toughest son of a gun I can find. And I think that’s the feeling of a lot of evangelicals.”Alberta captures this rage well in his book. He tells a gut-wrenching anecdote about receiving a nasty note in 2019 at the funeral of his father, a pastor. After Alberta spoke at the service, he was handed the note from a member of the congregation condemning him as part of an “evil plot” to “undermine God’s ordained leader of the United States” and demanding that he seek absolution by investigating the “deep state.” This would be a strange message to direct at a journalist under any circumstance. But to do so at his father’s funeral is grotesque.Yet certainty and ferocity are nothing without solidarity. It’s the sense of shared purpose and community that makes any form of fundamentalism truly potent. There is an undeniable allure to the idea that you’re joining a community that has achieved an understanding of life’s mysteries or discovered a path to resolving injustice. As angry as fundamentalists may feel, at the same time, there is true joy among comrades in the foxhole — at least as long as they remain comrades.I’m reminded of an infamous quote by Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, regarding the necessity of loyalty. Explaining Trump’s hostility toward Ron DeSantis, Huckabee said, “I think there are two virtues — loyalty and confidentiality. Be loyal to the people who helped you and learn how to keep your mouth shut.”Again, that’s not piety. It’s solidarity.When you recognize the psychology of fundamentalism, fundamentalist Christian enthusiasm for Trump makes considerably more sense. His fundamentalist supporters are certain that he is fulfilling a divine purpose. They are ferocious in their response to opponents, especially those Christians they believe to be weak or squishes. And they experience great joy in their motivated, activist solidarity.But the keys to fundamentalist success are also the source of its ultimate failure. Certainty, ferocity and solidarity can combine to create powerful social and political movements. They can have a steamrolling effect in institutions because their opponents — almost by definition — have less certainty, less ferocity and less solidarity.We’ve seen this phenomenon in both secular and religious spaces across the political spectrum. A small number of extremely confident and aggressive people can turn an organization upside down. Political activists who possess fundamentalist intensity can push through resistance — at least until their inherent intolerance creates sufficient backlash to trigger real opposition.That’s how fundamentalism fails. Certainty, which gives so much purpose, ultimately struggles in the face of complex realities. Ferocity, which allows fundamentalists to bully and intimidate opponents, also limits the ability to win converts. And solidarity, which creates community, can become stifling, as it encourages conformity and punishes those who raise good-faith questions.Why do so many fundamentalists love Trump? Because in his certainty, ferocity and demands of loyalty, he’s a far more culturally familiar figure than a person of restraint and rectitude such as the departing senator Mitt Romney, who has the piety of a true believer but does not possess the ferocity of the fundamentalist. Thus Romney was culturally out of step with the millions of Christians who wanted, in the words of Jeffress, “the meanest, toughest son of a gun” they could find.That’s why Trumpism, too, is ultimately doomed to fail. It’s engineered to destroy, not to build. The very characteristics that give it life also plant the seeds of its destruction. And so as we watch the continued marriage between Trumpism and fundamentalism dominate the right, the proper question isn’t whether fundamentalism will permanently remake American culture in its own image. Rather, it’s how much damage it will do before it collapses under the weight of its own rage and sin. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      CNN Will Host Two GOP Debates in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2024

      by

      The announcement of the debates, planned for the days before each state’s nominating contest, comes as the Republican National Committee considers loosening its rules for the onstage clashes.CNN will hold two Republican presidential debates in Iowa and New Hampshire next month in the days leading up to those states’ nominating contests, the network said on Thursday.The announcement, made a day after the fourth debate this year, comes as the Republican National Committee weighs whether to loosen its rules and allow candidates to take part in debates that it does not sponsor. A spokesman for the committee, Keith Schipper, said on social media that it had not approved the CNN debates.The committee approved four debates this year, steadily raising the minimum thresholds for participation and pushing out lower-polling candidates.The current Republican front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, did not attend any of the debates. An adviser to his campaign said he did not plan to participate in the CNN debates.The Republican Party had suggested it might hold forums in January in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but multiple people involved in the process said those debates might no longer be sponsored by the party.Almost immediately on Thursday, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has staked his campaign’s success on a strong showing in Iowa, said he would participate in the debate there.That gathering will be held on Jan. 10 at Drake University in Des Moines, five days before the Iowa caucuses. The network will allow candidates to participate only if they have received at least 10 percent in three separate national or Iowa polls, with at least one poll of likely Iowa Republican caucusgoers.The second debate is scheduled for Jan. 21 at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H., two days before the New Hampshire primary election. The top three finishers in Iowa will be invited to participate. Otherwise, the criteria are similar to the Iowa debate. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley’s South Carolina Strategy Has a Donald Trump Problem

      by

      Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, has won tough races in her home state. But as she vies for the 2024 Republican nomination, her state and party look different.In 2016, as Donald J. Trump was romping to victory in her home state, Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina backed Senator Marco Rubio as the fresh face of a “new conservative movement that’s going to change the country.”Now, Ms. Haley insists, she is that new generational leader, but even in her own state, she is finding Mr. Trump still standing in her way. If she is to make a real play for the Republican presidential nomination, South Carolina is where Ms. Haley needs to prove that the party’s voters want to turn the page on the Trump era — and where she has predicted that she will face him one-on-one after strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.“Then you’ll have me and Trump going into my home state of South Carolina — that’s how we win,” she told a crowd gathered inside a rustic banquet hall during a recent campaign stop in rural Wolfeboro, N.H.But Ms. Haley’s road to victory on her home turf will be steep. Ever since the state set Mr. Trump on a glide path to the G.O.P. nomination seven years ago, he has solidified a loyal base. The candidate who upended the state’s politics from outside the political system now has a tight hold on most of the Republican establishment, appearing recently with both Gov. Henry McMaster and Senator Lindsey Graham and boasting more than 80 endorsements from current and former officials across the state.“It is still clearly Trump’s party,” said Scott H. Huffmon, the director of the statewide Winthrop Poll, one of the few regular surveys of voter attitudes in the state. “That makes many Republican voters Trump supporters first. She has to remind them the party is bigger than one man.”Ms. Haley attempted to make that case on Wednesday on the national debate stage, where rivals intent on blunting her rise made her a target and put her on defense. She promised her approach would be different from Mr. Trump’s. “No drama, no vendettas, no whining,” she said. While Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has staked his bid on Iowa and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has gone all in on New Hampshire, Ms. Haley’s campaign officials say they have sought to spend equitable time and resources in all three early-voting states.Her campaign has its headquarters in Charleston, and is bolstered by what the campaign said was hundreds of volunteers. (The campaign declined to give specifics on staffing and volunteer efforts across all three states.)But Ms. Haley’s efforts have so far been less pronounced in South Carolina. She has spent 58 days campaigning almost evenly between Iowa and New Hampshire, but only 12 in her own backyard. Her campaign has not yet released a full list of endorsements within the state, though several key state legislators and donors are expected to back Ms. Haley in the coming days, according to her campaign. A $10 million advertising effort, more than $4 million of which has been reserved on television so far, is expected only in Iowa and New Hampshire.Ms. Haley’s campaign officials and allies argue she still has time to make up ground, even as Mr. Trump remains dominant nationwide and in all the early states, where surveys indicate he leads his nearest opponent by double digits. Former Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian, have dropped out of the race, which has helped Ms. Haley with money and momentum and tightened the fight with Mr. DeSantis for second place.At an energetic town-hall event last week in Bluffton, S.C., Katon Dawson, an adviser for the Haley campaign in South Carolina and a former chairman of the state Republican Party, pointed to the audience of more than 2,500 people — her largest crowd yet in her home state — and said the mailing lists generated from such events would help elevate her ground game.“When South Carolina jumps into focus, it’s going to jump in the gutter, and we’ll be ready for it,” Mr. Dawson said, suggesting he expected the attacks on Ms. Haley to become uglier closer to the January contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.Plenty of the attendees at the Bluffton event were former Trump supporters. Michelle Handfield, 80, a volunteer at a correctional institute, and her husband, John, 81, a retired photographer, said they had been some of Mr. Trump’s most enthusiastic admirers. Ms. Handfield, a former Democrat, said he was the first Republican she had ever voted for in 2016.Now, however, they were planning to vote for Ms. Haley for reasons similar to what the former South Carolina governor has articulated: “Chaos follows him.”“I think he was a great president, but they were after him from the beginning — the Democrats — and then he didn’t help by what he says and does,” Ms. Handfield said. “I really wish he had won a second term, but I think now he would do more harm for the country than good.”Former President Donald J. Trump has solidified a loyal base in South Carolina, appearing recently with Gov. Henry McMaster at a University of South Carolina football game.Chris Carlson/Associated PressStill, many of the state’s Republican primary voters remain ardent supporters of Mr. Trump, even as he has so far kept a light campaign schedule.“It is fascinating that we see all of these campaigns in the various stages of grief as President Trump continues to dominate the primary field,” said Alex Latcham, Mr. Trump’s early states director. “Right now, Haley is in the bargaining stage.”Ms. Haley’s political base in the state remains the same as it was when she was governor: the affluent — and more moderate — Republicans along the coast and in Charleston.But her grip on the Midlands, honed by her years in government, has loosened with time, and whatever support she had in the much more conservative Upstate around Greenville has dissipated sharply. To prevail, she must win back some of those conservatives and soften enthusiasm for Mr. Trump, all while fending off attacks from other opponents.On the debate stage Wednesday, Mr. DeSantis took aim at her conservative record as governor, saying he had signed a bill criminalizing transgender people for using bathrooms in public buildings that do not correspond to their sex at birth and argued she had not supported a similar measure. Ms. Haley countered that such legislation wasn’t necessary at the time, adding that she had not wanted to bring government into the issue. The South Carolina bill did not advance past its introduction in the State House.Last week, Mr. DeSantis also ripped into Ms. Haley as he campaigned in South Carolina. On Friday, he appeared with Tara Servatius, a popular radio broadcaster on the Greenville station WORD, who has been using her show for weeks to blast Ms. Haley as an untrustworthy moderate.“For the last 10 years, I have tried to get Nikki Haley to come answer unscripted questions,” Ms. Servatius said, to which Mr. DeSantis quipped, “Good luck with that.”Some Republican primary voters seem to be looking for a figure who embodies more drastic conservative change. Tim Branham, 73, of Columbia, could not recall much that Ms. Haley accomplished as governor. “In my opinion, the best thing you can say about Nikki was she’s a Republican,” he said.Still, Ms. Haley continues to pull in key endorsements along with a fresh wave of big-money donors looking for a Trump alternative, strengthening her finances as well as her field operations.Within a week of endorsing her campaign, Americans for Prosperity Action, the political network founded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch, had already poured $3.5 million into hiring door knockers, placing digital ads and producing door hangers and media in Iowa and South Carolina, according to federal spending filings. Within a day of its announcement, Americans for Prosperity Action had more than 140 volunteers and staffers already out in nearly half of South Carolina’s 46 counties spreading her message.Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Ms. Haley’s appeal, which appears greater among college-educated Republicans who do not think of themselves as particularly religious, better positioned her for success among Republican primary voters in New Hampshire.But he added that a more telling test of how her message might fare among Republican primary voters in South Carolina would be Iowa and its largely white and Christian evangelical Republican base — a group that is closely aligned with Mr. Trump.“If Haley loses South Carolina, that very well may be curtains,” Mr. Kondik said.Shane Goldmacher More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Winners and Losers From the Fourth Republican Debate

      by

      Welcome to Opinion’s commentary for the fourth Republican presidential debate, held at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa on Wednesday night. In this special feature, Times Opinion writers and contributors rate the candidates on a scale of 0 to 10: 0 means the candidate didn’t belong on the stage and should have dropped out before […] More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Por qué un segundo mandato de Trump sería más radical

      by

      En la primavera de 1989, el Partido Comunista de China usó tanques y soldados para reprimir una protesta a favor de la democracia en la plaza de Tiananmén de Pekín. La mayor parte de Occidente, más allá de las líneas partidistas tradicionales, se horrorizó ante la represión que mató a cientos de estudiantes activistas. Pero un conocido estadounidense quedó impresionado.“Cuando los estudiantes se congregaron en la plaza de Tiananmén, el gobierno chino casi lo arruina”, dijo Donald Trump en una entrevista con la revista Playboy el año después de la masacre. “Después, se ensañaron, fueron horribles, pero los suprimieron con fuerza. Eso demuestra el poder de la fuerza. En este momento, nuestro país es percibido como débil”.Fue una frase sin importancia en una amplia entrevista, concedida a un periodista que escribía el perfil de un famoso hombre de negocios de 43 años que por entonces no era un actor en la política nacional ni en los asuntos mundiales. Pero a la luz de lo que Trump ha llegado a ser, su apología de la represión despiadada de los manifestantes democráticos está impregnada de presagios.La retórica violenta y autoritaria en la campaña hacia 2024 de Trump ha ocasionado una alarma creciente y comparaciones con dictadores fascistas de la historia así como con caudillos populistas contemporáneos. En semanas recientes ha deshumanizado a sus adversarios al llamarlos “plagas” que deben ser “erradicadas”, ha declarado que los inmigrantes “envenenan la sangre de nuestro país”, ha alentado disparar contra los ladrones e insinuado que el expresidente del Estado Mayor Conjunto, Mark Milley, merecía ser ejecutado por traición.Ahora que se postula de nuevo a la presidencia al tiempo que enfrenta cuatro procesos penales, Trump puede parecer más enfadado, desesperado y peligroso para la democracia al estilo estadounidense que en su primer mandato. Pero la línea directa que emerge es anterior: lleva décadas glorificando la violencia política y elogiando a los autócratas.Fani Willis, fiscala del condado de Fulton, Georgia, presentó una de las acusaciones a las que se enfrenta TrumpKenny Holston/The New York TimesComo candidato presidencial en julio de 2016, elogió al exdictador iraquí Sadam Huseín por haber sido “tan bueno” matando terroristas. Meses después de su investidura, dijo al líder autócrata de Filipinas, Rodrigo Duterte, que su brutal campaña de miles de ejecuciones extrajudiciales en nombre de la lucha contra las drogas era “un trabajo increíble”. Y a lo largo de sus cuatro años en el Despacho Oval, Trump traspasó los límites y violó las normas democráticas.Un segundo mandato de Trump sería distinto no tanto por su carácter sino por su entorno. Todas las fuerzas que en cierto modo contuvieron sus tendencias autócratas en su primera presidencia (miembros del personal que consideraban que su trabajo era a veces contenerlo, los pocos republicanos del Congreso dispuestos por momentos a criticarlo u oponerse a él, un equilibrio partidista en la Corte Suprema que a veces fallaba en su contra) serían más débiles.En consecuencia, los planes políticos y las ideas más extremas de Trump y sus asesores para un segundo mandato tendrían más posibilidades de hacerse realidad.Una agenda radicalSin duda, parte de lo que Trump y sus aliados están planeando está en línea con lo que un presidente republicano cualquiera podría hacer. Por ejemplo, es muy probable que Trump dé marcha atrás a muchas de las políticas del presidente Joe Biden diseñadas para frenar las emisiones de carbono y acelerar la transición a los vehículos eléctricos. Tal retroceso de varias normas y políticas debilitaría significativamente las protecciones al medioambiente, pero gran parte de los cambios reflejan el escepticismo conservador habitual y de larga data e torno las regulaciones medioambientales.Sin embargo, hay otros aspectos de la agenda de Trump que tienden a la aberración. Ningún otro presidente estadounidense había contemplado la posibilidad de retirarse de la OTAN, la alianza militar de Estados Unidos con las democracias occidentales. Trump dijo que reevaluaría a fondo “el propósito y la misión de la OTAN” en un segundo mandato.También dijo que le ordenaría al Ejército atacar a los cárteles de la droga en México, algo que violaría el derecho internacional a menos que el gobierno mexicano diera su consentimiento. Lo más probable es que no lo haga.Del mismo modo, afirmó que desplegaría al Ejército en el territorio estadounidense. Aunque en general es ilegal utilizar soldados para hacer cumplir las leyes nacionales, la Ley de Insurrección permite excepciones. Después de que algunas manifestaciones contra la violencia policial en 2020 se convirtieron en disturbios, Trump hizo redactar una orden para emplear tropas a fin de reprimir a los manifestantes en Washington, D. C., pero no la firmó. Este año, en un mitin en Iowa, dio a entender que tiene la intención de enviar unilateralmente tropas a ciudades gobernadas por demócratas para que se respete el orden público en general.“Miras a cualquier estado gobernado por demócratas, y simplemente no es lo mismo, no funciona”, dijo Trump a la multitud, llamando a ciudades como Nueva York, Chicago, Los Ángeles y San Francisco guaridas del crimen. “No podemos permitirlo por más tiempo. Y una de las otras cosas que voy a hacer —porque no se supone que uno participe en eso, solo puede solicitarlo el gobernador o el alcalde que uno vaya— la próxima vez, no voy a esperar”.Los planes de Trump de expulsar a los inmigrantes que se encuentran en el país de manera ilegal incluyen hacer redadas masivas, instalar enormes campos de detención, deportar a millones de personas al año, poner fin al asilo, acabar con la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento para los bebés nacidos en suelo estadounidense de padres que viven en el país ilegalmente e invocar la Ley de Insurrección cerca de la frontera sur para que los soldados también actúen como agentes de inmigración.Trump tiene planes radicales para hacer frente a los inmigrantes indocumentados.Verónica G. Cárdenas para The New York TimesTrump buscaría expandir las facultades presidenciales de muchas maneras, entre ellas al concentrar una mayor autoridad del poder ejecutivo en la Casa Blanca, acabar con la independencia de las agencias creadas por el Congreso para operar al margen del control presidencial y reducir las protecciones a la función pública para facilitar el despido y contratación de decenas de miles de empleados gubernamentales.Más que cualquier otra cosa, la promesa de Trump de utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus adversarios es un franco desafío a los valores democráticos. Teniendo en cuenta cómo trató de conseguir que los fiscales persiguieran a sus enemigos cuando estaba en el cargo, pondría fin a la norma de independencia investigadora del control político de la Casa Blanca que surgió después de Watergate.En todos estos esfuerzos, Trump estaría respaldado en un segundo mandato por una infraestructura externa bien financiada. En 2016, los laboratorios de ideas conservadores eran bastiones del republicanismo al estilo de George W. Bush. Pero han surgido otros nuevos dirigidos por veteranos del gobierno de Trump, y la venerada Heritage Foundation se ha remodelado para mantenerse en sintonía con el trumpismo.Una coalición ha estado elaborando planes políticos al estilo de “Estados Unidos Primero” (America First) apodados Proyecto 2025. (La campaña de Trump ha expresado su aprecio, pero ha dicho que solo cuentan los planes anunciados por él o por su campaña). Mientras que algunas de las propuestas que se están desarrollando en esos lugares impulsarían los objetivos tradicionales de los megadonantes republicanos —como frenar las regulaciones a las empresas— otras están más en sintonía con los intereses personales de Trump.El Center for Renewing America, por ejemplo, ha publicado un documento titulado “El Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos no es independiente”. El documento fue escrito por Jeffrey Clark, a quien Trump casi nombró fiscal general en funciones para ayudar a su intento de subvertir las elecciones y quien enfrenta a cargos penales en Georgia en relación con ese esfuerzo.Cuando se le pidió un comentario al respecto, un vocero de Trump no entró en detalles, pero sí criticó a The New York Times y afirmó que Trump era “estricto con la delincuencia”.Protecciones debilitadasYa desde que se postuló en 2016, Trump incumplió las normas democráticas.Calificó de fraude su derrota en los caucus de Iowa sin tener pruebas e insinuó que solo consideraría legítimos los resultados de las elecciones generales si ganaba. Amenazó con encarcelar a Hillary Rodham Clinton, tachó de violadores a los inmigrantes mexicanos y prometió prohibir la entrada de los musulmanes a Estados Unidos. Se ofreció a pagarle abogados defensores a los simpatizantes que en sus mítines golpearan a manifestantes y azuzó el odio contra los periodistas que cubrían sus eventos.Ya en la presidencia, Trump se negó a dejar de lado sus negocios, y quienes querían congraciarse con él reservaban costosos bloques de habitaciones en sus hoteles. A pesar de la existencia de una ley contra el nepotismo, dio puestos en la Casa Blanca a su hija y a su yerno. Utilizó poderes de emergencia para destinar al muro fronterizo más fondos de los autorizados por el Congreso. Sus abogados propusieron indultar a su presidente de campaña, a quien Trump elogió por no “voltearse” cuando los fiscales intentaron (infructuosamente) que cooperara como testigo en la investigación sobre Rusia; Trump al final lo indultaría.La hija de Trump, Ivanka Trump, y su yerno, Jared Kushner, recibieron puestos en la Casa Blanca a pesar de una ley contra el nepotismoAl Drago para The New York TimesSin embargo, algunas de sus infracciones a las normas que podían ser más graves no se llegaron a realizar.Trump presionó al Departamento de Justicia para que procesara a sus adversarios. El Departamento de Justicia abrió varias investigaciones penales, desde la inspección al exsecretario de Estado John Kerry y el exdirector del FBI James Comey, hasta el intento de un fiscal especial, John Durham, por encontrar fundamentos para acusar a funcionarios de seguridad nacional de la era de Barack Obama, o a Hillary Clinton de delitos relacionados con los orígenes de la investigación sobre Rusia. Pero, para enojo de Trump, los fiscales decidieron no presentar tales cargos.Y fueron infructuosas las acciones que motivaron que se le realizaran juicios políticos. Trump intentó coaccionar a Ucrania para que abriera una investigación penal contra Biden al retener ayuda militar, pero no funcionó. También trató de revertir su derrota electoral en 2020 y alentó el ataque al Capitolio, pero el vicepresidente Mike Pence y las mayorías del Congreso rechazaron su intento de mantenerse en el poder.Existen motivos para creer que varios obstáculos y baluartes que limitaron a Trump en su primer mandato estarían ausentes en un segundo.Parte de lo que Trump intentó hacer se vio frustrado por la incompetencia y la disfunción de su equipo inicial. Pero a lo largo de cuatro años, quienes se quedaron con él aprendieron a ejercer el poder con mayor eficacia. Por ejemplo, después de que los tribunales bloquearon su primera prohibición de ingreso a ciertos viajeros internacionales, que se había elaborado de manera descuidada, su equipo desarrolló una versión que la Corte Suprema permitió que entrara en vigor.Los nombramientos que realizó durante cuatro años crearon una supermayoría republicana atrincherada en la Corte Suprema que con toda seguridad ahora se pondría de su lado en algunos casos que perdió, como la decisión de 5 contra 4 votos que en junio de 2020 le impidió poner fin a un programa que protege de la deportación a ciertas personas que viven ilegalmente en el país y que fueron traídas de niños y crecieron como estadounidenses.Los republicanos del Congreso fueron a menudo sus socios y facilitadores, colaborando con él para ratificar jueces y recortar impuestos a las empresas, al tiempo que ejercían una escasa supervisión. Pero algunos republicanos clave del Congreso denunciaron ocasionalmente su retórica o frenaron sus propuestas más perturbadoras.En 2017, el entonces senador Bob Corker reprendió a Trump por hacer amenazas imprudentes a Corea del Norte en Twitter, y el entonces senador John McCain proporcionó el voto decisivo contra la presión de Trump para rescindir, sin un plan de reemplazo, una ley que hace que la cobertura de seguro de salud esté ampliamente disponible.Es probable que los republicanos en el Congreso sean aún más flexibles en un segundo mandato de Trump. El partido se ha acostumbrado más e incluso se ha entusiasmado con la voluntad de Trump de pasarse de la raya. Y Trump ha desgastado, superado, intimidado hasta la sumisión o expulsado a destacados legisladores republicanos que tienen una posición independiente y han demostrado una disposición ocasional de oponerse a él.McCain, que fue el candidato presidencial del Partido Republicano en 2008, murió en 2018. La excongresista Liz Cheney, que votó a favor de la destitución de Trump por incitar a los disturbios del 6 de enero de 2021 y ayudó a dirigir el comité que investigó esos acontecimientos, perdió su escaño ante un aspirante favorable a Trump. El senador Mitt Romney, candidato presidencial republicano en 2012 y único senador del Partido Republicano que votó a favor de la condena de Trump en su primer juicio político, se está jubilando.La congresista Liz Cheney, en el centro a la derecha, ayudó a dirigir la investigación del ataque del 6 de enero de 2021 en el Capitolio y más tarde perdió en las primarias contra un candidato favorable a Trump.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEl miedo a la violencia de los partidarios de Trump también refuerza el control. En libros recientes, tanto Romney como Cheney escribieron que algunos colegas republicanos, a quienes no nombraron, les dijeron que querían votar contra Trump en los procedimientos de destitución relacionados con el 6 de enero, pero que no lo hicieron por temor a su seguridad y la de sus familias.El personal hace políticasQuizá el contrapeso más importante a la presidencia de Trump fue la resistencia interna de su gobierno a algunas de sus demandas más extremas. Una seguidilla de personas a las que nombró en altos cargos y despidió ha advertido desde entonces que no está capacitado para ser presidente, entre ellos John Kelly, quien fungió como jefe de personal de la Casa Blanca; los exsecretarios de Defensa Jim Mattis y Mark Esper; el exasesor de seguridad nacional John Bolton, así como el exfiscal general William Barr, entre otros.Por su parte, Trump ha calificado a todos ellos de débiles, estúpidos y desleales. En privado, ha dicho a sus allegados que sus mayores errores tuvieron que ver con las personas que nombró, en particular a su elegido para fiscal general. Los asesores que se han quedado con él están decididos a que, si gana un nuevo mandato, no habrá funcionarios que obstaculicen su agenda de manera intencional.Además de elaborar documentos de formulación de políticas, la coalición de laboratorios de ideas dirigidos por personas afines a Trump también recopiló una base de datos de miles de posibles reclutas que ya cuentan con el visto bueno para formar parte del equipo de transición en caso de que Trump gane las elecciones. Quienes fueron altos funcionarios del gobierno de Trump realizan esfuerzos similares para prepararse a fin de abastecer al gobierno de abogados que podrían encontrar maneras de lograr que se aprueben las ideas radicales de la Casa Blanca en lugar de plantear objeciones legales.Estos esfuerzos de dotación de personal estarían fundamentados en un cambio ocurrido en su último año como presidente. En 2020, Trump sustituyó a asesores que habían intentado controlarlo e instaló a un joven ayudante, John McEntee, para eliminar a otros funcionarios considerados poco leales.Dependiendo de las elecciones al Senado, la confirmación de nominados particularmente polémicos para puestos importantes podría ser un desafío. Pero otra violación de las normas que Trump fue desarrollando gradualmente fue hacer un uso agresivo de su poder para cubrir temporalmente vacantes con jefes “en funciones” para puestos que se supone que deben someterse a la confirmación del Senado.En 2020, por ejemplo, Trump nombró a Richard Grenell —un combativo aliado de Trump y exembajador en Alemania— como director interino de inteligencia nacional. Dos líderes de inteligencia anteriores de la era Trump habían enojado al presidente al defender una evaluación de que Rusia había intentado encubiertamente ayudar a su campaña de 2016 y al informar a los líderes demócratas que lo estaba haciendo de nuevo en 2020. Grenell, en cambio, se ganó los elogios de Trump al utilizar el puesto para desclasificar materiales sensibles que los republicanos utilizaron para caracterizar la investigación de Rusia como sospechosa.Richard Grenell fue uno de los jefes en funciones nombrados por Trump para puestos que deben pasar por la confirmación del Senado. Se convirtió en director en funciones de la inteligencia nacional.Pete Marovich para The New York TimesDespués de que Trump dejó el cargo, hubo muchas propuestas para codificar en leyes las normas democráticas que había infringido. Entre las ideas propuestas estaban imponer límites más estrictos al uso de los poderes presidenciales de emergencia, exigir la divulgación de sus declaraciones de impuestos, dar fuerza a la prohibición constitucional a recibir pagos externos y dificultar el abuso al poder de indulto y su autoridad sobre los fiscales.En diciembre de 2021, cuando los demócratas aún controlaban la Cámara de Representantes, esta aprobó muchas de estas propuestas como la Ley de Protección de Nuestra Democracia. Todos los republicanos menos uno —el entonces representante Adam Kinzinger, que se jubilaba tras haber votado a favor de la destitución de Trump después de los disturbios del 6 de enero— votaron en contra del proyecto de ley, que fracasó en el Senado.El debate en la Cámara se desarrolló en gran medida sobre una premisa que reducía su urgencia: Trump ya no estaba. Los demócratas abogaron por considerar que las reformas se referían a futuros presidentes, mientras que los republicanos las rechazaron como un golpe innecesario a Trump.“Donald Trump —por desgracia— ya no es presidente”, dijo el representante Rick Crawford, republicano por Arkansas. “Es hora de dejar de vivir en el pasado”.Charlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Ganador del premio Pulitzer por sus reportajes sobre el poder presidencial, es también autor de los libros Takeover y Power Wars. Más de Charlie SavageJonathan Swan es periodista de política que cubre las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 y la campaña de Donald Trump. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal política sénior y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte del equipo que ganó un premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más de Maggie Haberman More

    • 38 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley’s Moment

      by

      Rob Szypko, Mary Wilson and Marion Lozano, Rowan Niemisto and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicOver the last few months, Nikki Haley has gained enough in the polls to suggest she is on the verge of surpassing Ron DeSantis as the main threat to Donald J. Trump in the race to become the Republican candidate for 2024.Jazmine Ulloa, a national politics reporter for The Times; and Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, discuss her building momentum and examine how far she might go.On today’s episodeJazmine Ulloa, a national politics reporter for The New York Times.Nate Cohn, The New York Times’s chief political analyst.Nikki Haley has gained with educated and relatively moderate Republicans and independents, but that could also be a big liability in today’s G.O.P.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesBackground readingNikki Haley’s path from Trump critic to defender and back.Why is Ms. Haley’s star rising among the rivals to Mr. Trump?Here are five takeaways from the Republican debate last night.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Jazmine Ulloa More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. Debate Takeaways, and a Tech Start-Up Collapse

      by

      The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about five minutes.In the fourth Republican presidential debate on Wednesday, the narrow policy differences among the candidates were overshadowed by feisty personal clashes and insults.Bob Miller for The New York TimesOn Today’s Episode:Insults Fly and Candidates Clash With Time Running Out Before Iowa, by Jonathan WeismanMcCarthy Says He Will Leave Congress at the End of the Year, by Annie KarniFrom Unicorns to Zombies: Tech Start-Ups Run Out of Time and Money, by Erin GriffithHot Glazed Doughnuts on the Menu, and Parisians Can’t Get Enough, by Liz AldermanJessica Metzger and More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      McCarthy’s Exit May Create Even More Headaches for the Tiny G.O.P. Majority

      by

      The former speaker’s decision to leave his seat a year early could affect control of the House, the legislative agenda and his party’s efforts to keep its majority in the 2024 election.Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s announcement that he would leave Congress came as little surprise to his closest colleagues, but his decision to do so a year before the end of his term poses challenges for his party. It will shrink Republicans’ already razor-thin majority in the House as they face a number of issues in the coming months that will require near-unanimous party support.The departure of Mr. McCarthy, who was his party’s strongest fund-raiser in the House and spent two election cycles helping to build the Republican majority, also could put a dent in the G.O.P.’s ability to rake in campaign cash, although he has said he wants to continue to play a role in politics.Here’s how Mr. McCarthy’s departure could affect the House and his party.A slim majority will get even slimmer.Republicans started the year acknowledging that one of their biggest challenges would be keeping their party unified as their midterm victories delivered a tiny majority. They had 222 members while Democrats had 213, leaving little room for defectors and making it easier for a small number of disgruntled Republicans to influence policy and vote outcomes.They could afford to lose no more than four votes on any bill if all Democrats showed up and voted against them. Any more than that would doom G.O.P. legislation.With the expulsion last week of former Representative George Santos of New York, Republicans now have only 221 members, meaning their four-vote margin has shrunk to three. Any more defections than that would result in a 217-to-217 tie or give the Democratic side more votes than the Republican one.With Mr. McCarthy gone, Republicans will enter the new year with 220 votes, leaving the same margin since they could still lose three votes and be ahead of Democrats, 217 to 216.A special election for Mr. Santos’s seat is set for Feb. 13, and Democrats hope to recapture the politically competitive district, which President Biden won in 2020. That would further erode the Republicans’ edge.A winter shutdown showdown could become even more unmanageable.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California will have 14 days after Mr. McCarthy’s final day to call a special election, which must take place about four months later. The Bakersfield-anchored district is solidly Republican, meaning that a G.O.P. candidate is likely to win the race to serve out the remainder of his term. But that won’t happen before mid-January, when lawmakers face the first of two deadlines for funding the government.Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, has struggled to push critical legislation through the House, and a slimmer majority would probably empower the rebellious hard-right wing of his party to double down on its policy demands ahead of the deadlines, the second of which is in early February.The smaller majority could also affect the fight over an emergency national security spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine, along with help for Israel in its war against Hamas and border security funding.On Wednesday, Republicans blocked the measure in the Senate. The bill would face an uphill battle in the House, where Republican support for Ukraine’s war effort is dwindling.Republicans will lose their best House fund-raiser.For years, Mr. McCarthy has traveled to hundreds of districts across the country, bringing in millions of dollars in campaign cash for candidates and helping Republicans win control of the House in 2022. He has said he planned to remain engaged in Republican politics.“I will continue to recruit our country’s best and brightest to run for elected office,” Mr. McCarthy said in announcing his plans to leave the House in The Wall Street Journal. “The Republican Party is expanding every day, and I am committed to lending my experience to support the next generation of leaders.”During his time as speaker, Mr. McCarthy brought in $78 million for his colleagues’ re-election efforts, more than 100 times the amount of money Mr. Johnson had collected before becoming speaker.His support of new candidates will be aided by a campaign account with more than $10 million at his disposal. Even after leaving office, Mr. McCarthy can use the campaign funds to establish a political action committee or directly support other campaigns. He has signaled that he would like to play a substantial role, and many lawmakers and aides believe he may intervene in party primaries to target the far-right Republicans who led the push to oust him from the speakership.Republicans are holding their breath for more exits.More than three dozen incumbents from both parties in both chambers have said they will not seek re-election. If even a handful more House Republicans leave in the coming months, it could wipe away their majority before a single vote is cast in the 2024 election. Another Republican, Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio, has announced that he will leave Congress in several months to become the president of Youngstown State University, though he has not said precisely when.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, and one of Mr. McCarthy’s strongest allies, expressed her frustration over the eroding majority in a post on social media, saying, “Hopefully no one dies.” More