Right-Wing Extremism and Alt-Right

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      As Israel’s Far Right Nears Power, Palestinians Feel a Pang of Fear

      by

      To some Palestinians, the rise of the Israeli far right can scarcely make things worse. But many fear a surge of violence.JERUSALEM — For Jewish Israelis, the election this week of a far-right alliance has left some joyful, and others with a sense of bewilderment and foreboding.But to Palestinians in both the occupied territories and within Israel’s Arab minority, it has summoned a different and contradictory blend of emotions: fear, indifference and, in some cases, a sense of opportunity.Barring a last-minute change of heart, Benjamin Netanyahu, the returning prime minister, will form a government with a far-right bloc whose settler leaders variously seek to end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the occupied West Bank, expel those they deem disloyal to Israel and make it easier for soldiers to shoot at Palestinians while on duty.One of those leaders, Itamar Ben-Gvir, until recently hung a large photograph of an extremist Israeli who shot dead 29 Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in 1994 on his wall at home. He still keeps a picture on display there of Meir Kahane, an extremist rabbi who sought to strip Arabs of their Israeli citizenship.To some Palestinians, the far right’s rise can scarcely make things worse for them. Israel has long operated a two-tier legal system in the occupied West Bank that tries Palestinians in military courts and Israelis in civilian ones; rarely punishes violent Israeli settlers; and already mounts near-daily raids in Palestinian areas — raids that have helped make this year the deadliest in the West Bank since at least 2015.Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to restrictions on their movement, almost all of them unable to drive into Israel, while neighboring settlers freely come and go. Many struggle to access their private land close to settlements and risk attack when they do.Volunteers from the Jewish Power party handed out fliers at a polling station in Nof Hagalil, Israel, on Tuesday in front of a picture of the party’s leader, Itamar Ben-Gvir.Amit Elkayam for The New York TimesIn Gaza, Palestinians live under an Israeli-Egyptian blockade that is intended to stop arms supply to militants, but severely restricts Gazans’ ability to leave or access certain medical equipment and 3G internet.For that reason, some hope Mr. Ben-Gvir’s arrival even brings opportunity: Some have long considered the Israeli state indistinguishable from the likes of Mr. Ben-Gvir, and they hope the world will now see what they see.But to many Palestinians, a far-right government, studded with lawmakers with a history of antagonizing Arabs, has no silver lining. It is simply terrifying.“I’m afraid of a very dark future,” said Issa Amro, an activist in Hebron, in the southern West Bank. “Ben-Gvir is very fanatic and extreme and, for me, a fascist. He is a big threat.”With Mr. Ben-Gvir in government, some Palestinians fear even more impunity for settler violence and even greater restrictions on their movements. They also fear that Mr. Ben-Gvir’s calls to deport people who oppose the state of Israel are a code for the expulsion of Palestinians.To Mr. Amro and the other residents of Hebron, Mr. Ben-Gvir is a known quantity — and not in a comforting way.Mr. Ben-Gvir lives in a settlement in Hebron, and has a history of confrontation with local Palestinians. A video from 2015 showed him involved in an attack on a Palestinian shop in the Old City of Hebron, pulling a clothes rack to the ground.A Palestinian vendor reading news about Israeli elections in a newspaper, in Hebron in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on Wednesday.Mussa Issa Qawasma/ReutersThe mosque massacre in 1994, whose perpetrator, Baruch Goldstein, was once feted by Mr. Ben-Gvir in his home, occurred a few hundred yards away.“I’m afraid that fanatic settlers will feel more empowered” by Mr. Ben-Gvir’s rise, said Mr. Amro. “I’m afraid that more Baruch Goldstein massacres will happen.”The mood in Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood of East Jerusalem where settler movements seek to evict Palestinian residents, was also apprehensive.Mr. Ben-Gvir frequently visits and champions the settlers of Sheikh Jarrah, even setting up a tent there that he declared his temporary office. His provocative presence exacerbated tensions in the neighborhood that contributed to the outbreak of an 11-day war in May 2021 between Israel and militants in Gaza.Last month, he returned to Sheikh Jarrah, brandishing a pistol and telling policemen to fire at nearby Palestinians.“Friends, they’re throwing rocks at us,” Mr. Ben-Gvir said, pulling out his handgun. “Shoot them.”Mr. Ben-Gvir says he has become more moderate in recent years. He tells his followers to chant “Death to terrorists,” replacing their previous chant of “Death to Arabs.” He still calls Mr. Kahane “a hero,” but distanced himself from the rabbi’s most extreme positions.“I have no problem, of course, with the minorities here,” he recently said in a voice message to The New York Times, after declining an interview.But in Sheikh Jarrah, Palestinian residents blame Mr. Ben-Gvir for galvanizing the groups of Israelis who have roamed the neighborhood throwing stones, and the movements that seek their eviction. They fear his rise will cause “big harm for Sheikh Jarrah and Jerusalem in general,” said Muhammad al-Kiswani, a resident of Sheikh Jarrah who said his home had been damaged by the settlers’ rocks.The Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem last month, an area rife with tensions between Palestinians and Israelis.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesAs they drove to Friday prayers, Mr. al-Kiswani’s 5-year-old son, Zeinidden, leaned forward at the mention of a familiar name.“Baba, is that — is that the man who had the gun?” asked Zeinidden.“Yes,” Mr. al-Kiswani told his son. Returning to the interview, he added: “Our children are developing mental issues because of what’s happening.”Some Palestinians, though fearful, predict that Mr. Ben-Gvir will do little that Israel hasn’t already done to Palestinians living under either occupation or as a minority within the state of Israel.“Our day-to-day won’t be that different,” said Nour Younis, an activist living in Tel Aviv. “We might pay the price, sure, but we already have been paying the price with any government.”Some Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, nevertheless hope this moment could also possibly bring about a better future. Jewish-led leftist parties suffered a near-wipeout in the election — and to claw their way back to influence, some hope that they will be forced to work more closely with, and establish greater empathy for, the parties and narratives of the Palestinian minority.“The days are also difficult for anyone who considers himself of the Zionist center-left,” said Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian lawmaker in the Israeli Parliament.“We need to think differently now,” she added. “This is not a reality we ever knew and it requires all of the democratic forces to work together in an effort to stop the raging right.”Others also hope the far right’s rise will bring greater international attention to Israel’s worst excesses, making them harder for the world to ignore, said Ms. Younis, the activist.“I look at the bright side — finally, Israel’s real face will show,” she said. “When this face is exposed to the international community, I hope they finally understand that there really isn’t a true partner for peace in Israel.”But others were less optimistic.The world would still lack empathy for Palestinians, with or without Mr. Ben-Gvir, said Maha Nakib, a Palestinian activist in Lod, an Israeli city with a recent history of interethnic tensions.“They don’t really care,” said Ms. Nakib. “Our eyes aren’t blue and our hair isn’t blond like the Ukrainians.”A Palestinian man looks out his house window in a refugee camp in Khan Younis this week in Gaza, which is under a joing Israeli-Egyptian blockade.Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/ReutersRami Nazzal contributed reporting from Ramallah, West Bank, and Gabby Sobelman from Rehovot, Israel. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What if Every Moment Since Jan. 6 Was Just the Calm Before the Storm?

      by

      Richard Ringer, a 69-year-old Democratic state House candidate in Pennsylvania, is an early riser, and on Monday he was up before 5 a.m. when he heard someone at his garage door. He looked out the window, saw a man with a flashlight, and assumed it was the same person who had twice vandalized his house in the past month.Just a couple of weeks earlier, Ringer says, he found a message spray-painted on his garage door; though the rain partly rinsed it off, the words “Your Race” and “Dead” were visible. Then, last Thursday night, he says he came home to a brick thrown through his window.So when Ringer saw the intruder on Monday, he says, he ran outside and tackled him. But the man was quickly able to pin Ringer down, and beat him unconscious. Ringer doesn’t know for certain that the violence was political — the police are investigating — but given the graffiti, and the fact that his neighborhood in Fayette County, in southwestern Pennsylvania, is usually quiet and safe, he suspects it was. “I’m not really surprised that this is happening locally, and is happening to me, just because of what has been going on and the enthusiasm for Trump around here,” he told me.Ringer’s assault made the local news, but hasn’t been much of a story nationally. Perhaps that’s because it’s just a small detail in a growing tapestry of menace. All over this febrile country, intimations of mayhem are gathering. Vigilantes in Arizona, some armed and wearing tactical gear, have harassed and intimidated voters at the sites of ballot drop boxes, cheered on by Mark Finchem, the Republican candidate for secretary of state. In Nevada, where a millionaire far-right Republican official named Robert Beadles has systemically targeted election workers, Reuters reported that the top election officials in 10 of the state’s 17 counties have resigned, retired or declined to run again.And, most notably, a MAGA fanatic named David DePape broke into Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home and assaulted her 82-year-old husband with a hammer, leaving him unconscious in a pool of his own blood. More shocking than the attack itself has been the response to it from the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party. Some officials spread lurid lies that Pelosi was attacked by a gay lover. Others jeered about it. “Nancy Pelosi, well, she’s got protection when she’s in D.C. — apparently her house doesn’t have a lot of protection,” Kari Lake, Arizona’s Republican candidate for governor, said to laughter at a campaign event. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a photo of underwear and a hammer with the caption, “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.”It’s hard to feel sanguine about a society whose political class cannot muster the solidarity to universally condemn the terroristic bludgeoning of an old man. It’s why Joe Biden’s speech on Wednesday night, in which he spoke about the attack on Pelosi and the role that Trump’s big lie is playing in the midterms, was at once so necessary and so unpromising. He was trying to appeal to a patriotic consensus about democracy that simply no longer exists.“Disunion and chaos are not inevitable,” said Biden, standing at a podium in Union Station. “There’s been anger before in America. There’s been division before in America. But we’ve never given up on the American experiment. And we can’t do that now.”Biden wasn’t warning that America might spiral into either autocracy or low-level civil war. He was trying to offer hope that it might not. The very fact that he had to insist there’s an alternative to disunion and chaos is a sign of how bad things have gotten.Political violence is not exclusively perpetrated by conservatives. The recent beating in Florida of a Marco Rubio canvasser — a man who turned out to have ties to white supremacists — appears to have been motivated by anti-Republican animus. But, as my colleagues on the editorial board wrote on Thursday, the right is far more violent than the left, and Republicans wink at assaults committed by extremists in a way that Democrats do not.The message of all the chuckling about Paul Pelosi is clear: The right believes its enemies have no rights, and no longer sees the need to pretend otherwise. Donald Trump taught the Republican Party that it needn’t bother with hypocritical displays of decency, that it can revel in cruelty, transgression and the thrill of violence. Now it’s taking that lesson into the first post-Jan. 6 election. The tense calm of the last 20 months has often felt like being in the eye of a hurricane. Now the terrible weather is coming back.In a widely cited essay, the centrist pundit Josh Barro criticized Biden’s speech because it implied that voters concerned about democracy must vote for Democrats whatever their policy preferences. “The message is that there is only one party contesting this election that is committed to democracy — the Democrats — and therefore only one real choice available,” he wrote, adding, “This amounts to telling voters that they have already lost their democracy.” I find this argument bizarre. It is simply a fact that only one party tried to overturn the 2020 election, and only one party is trying to insulate itself from the will of voters in future elections. As the Wisconsin Republican candidate Tim Michels put it recently, “Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor.”It may be that Biden’s efforts to alert the country about what’s coming are doomed. In a recent CBS poll, 56 percent of likely voters said they believe that if Republicans win in the midterms, they will try to overturn Democratic election victories. The same poll showed that, if the election were held today, 47 percent plan to vote for Republicans, and only 45 percent for Democrats. Those who prioritize the preservation of democracy in America are probably already Democratic voters. Still, Biden had an obligation to try to focus our attention on a mounting threat.Though Republicans are likely to do well on Tuesday, many elections will probably remain unsettled. Leigh Chapman, Pennsylvania’s acting secretary of state, wrote that because of a state law prohibiting the counting of mail-in ballots before Election Day, results there will probably take several days. Nevada will also take several days after the election to count mail-in ballots. Some Republicans, including Lake and Finchem, won’t commit to accepting the result if they lose. We can expect others to sow doubt about the process if they start falling behind as mail-in votes come in.As the Democratic strategist Michael Podhorzer put it, “When it comes to the postelection crisis, 2020 was like the beginning of ‘The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,’ and 2022 will be more like the part where the walking mops multiply out of control.” We should be ready for what could soon be unleashed.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu Set to Win Israel’s Election and Return to Power Within Weeks

      by

      After five elections in less than four years, Israel will have a stable government for the first time since 2019. But Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition could test the constitutional framework and social fabric.JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s opposition leader, was set on Thursday to seal victory in Israel’s general election, putting him on track to return as prime minister at the helm of one of the most right-wing governments in Israeli history.Vote counting was expected to finish on Thursday afternoon, and Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc is almost guaranteed to score a clear victory, according to near final results published by the electoral authority. That would ensure that Israel, after five elections in less than four years, will have a cohesive government with a steady majority for the first time since 2019.The far right’s strong showing was linked to fears among right-wing Jews about perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity and to their personal safety. A wave of interethnic riots in May 2021 unsettled their sense of security, a feeling that was compounded months later by the inclusion — for the first time in Israeli history — of an Arab party in the coalition government.Those dual concerns drove some right-wing Israelis to more extreme parties in the most recent election.Although the coalition led by Mr. Netanyahu would provide a stable government, it would nevertheless unsettle Israel’s constitutional framework and social fabric.Supporters of the far-right politician Itamar Ben-Gvir in the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh last month.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesCurrently standing trial on corruption charges, Mr. Netanyahu says that he will not use his authority to upend that process. But some of his coalition partners have said they will push to legalize one of the crimes he is accused of committing, or even to end the trial entirely.His return would also test some of Israel’s diplomatic relations, most notably with the United States and with the Persian Gulf states with which Israel recently formed alliances.Mr. Netanyahu himself oversaw the creation of those alliances during his last spell in office. But his new coalition allies’ priorities are likely to heighten tensions with the Palestinians, which could embarrass Israel’s Arab and American partners.These tensions underscore the complexity of Mr. Netanyahu’s return: As Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, he is a known quantity who has defined contemporary Israeli society perhaps more than any other politician. But his decision to ally with the far right, untrammeled by any centrist or leftist forces, takes Israel into the unknown.Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies want to weaken and overhaul Israel’s justice system, giving politicians more control of judicial appointments and loosening the Supreme Court’s oversight of parliamentary process. Those allies could make such policies a condition of their joining his coalition.They also want to end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the occupied West Bank and have a history of antagonizing the Palestinian minority within Israel itself, a track record that has raised fears that the new government could exacerbate Jewish-Arab tensions in Israel and curb any remaining hope of an end to the occupation.A separation barrier in the West Bank city of Bethlehem in April. Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies want to end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the occupied West Bank.Samar Hazboun for The New York TimesMr. Netanyahu may not formally return to power until the second half of November. State protocols mean that the Israeli president, Isaac Herzog, has until Nov. 16 to invite Mr. Netanyahu to assemble a government, and Mr. Netanyahu’s own coalition negotiations might take even longer.Foreign-policy experts predict that Mr. Netanyahu, once back in office, will be forced to tread an awkward path between mollifying hard-line allies at home while avoiding confrontations with international partners that support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.The State Department has already hinted that the Biden administration has reservations about Mr. Netanyahu’s likely coalition partners.“We hope that all Israeli government officials will continue to share the values of an open, democratic society, including tolerance and respect for all in civil society, particularly for minority groups,” said the department’s spokesman, Ned Price, when asked about the election result on Wednesday.Aaron David Miller, a former senior official at the State Department, said that Mr. Biden and Mr. Netanyahu would try to avoid conflict because they have other, more pressing priorities.But, Mr. Miller said, “At a minimum, Biden and Netanyahu will likely annoy the hell out of one another.”“The unprecedented character of the new Israeli government, the most right-wing in Israel’s history, will — to say the least — sharpen the differences,” he added.Mr. Netanyahu was the primary architect of the landmark diplomatic relationships that Israel forged in 2020 with Bahrain, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates, and re-election is not expected to upend those new ties, even if it presents them with new challenges.Mr. Netanyahu, seated second from left, with President Donald J. Trump and officials from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates at the signing of a breakthrough accord at the White House in 2020.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThough none of Israel’s new partners have renounced the Palestinian cause, analysts say that Persian Gulf leaders now consider their own national interests to be a greater immediate priority.“From the perspective of any of the Gulf states, normalization is tied to their long-term strategic plans and has little to do with the day-to-day of Israeli politics,” said Elham Fakhro, a research fellow at the Center for Gulf Studies at Exeter University in England. “The same way as U.S. presidents come and go, they see any relationship with Israel as transcending short-term political dynamics,” she added.Just as he went along with the Oslo accords in the 1990s, after criticizing them while in opposition, Mr. Netanyahu is also expected to stick to a recent maritime deal with Lebanon that he condemned when it was negotiated.But his election may make it harder to formalize ties between Israel and the most influential Arab country, Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government recently made small diplomatic gestures to Israel, like allowing Israeli planes to fly through its airspace, but said it would not agree to full diplomatic relations until the creation of a Palestinian state.“It is unlikely that there will be traction on the Saudi-Israeli diplomatic relationship,” Dr. Fakhro said. In exchange for normalizing ties, she added, Saudi Arabia “would expect something major in return. Netanyahu’s approach — by definition — rejects the possibility of major concessions.”In Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents fear that his return will empower the more extreme figures in his coalition. One of them, Bezalel Smotrich, wants to be defense minister; another, Itamar Ben-Gvir, wants to oversee the police force.Itamar Ben-Gvir, left, and Bezalel Smotrich taking part in a march near Jerusalem’s Old City in 2021. They are among the more extreme figures in Mr. Netanyahu’s likely coalition.Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesUntil 2020, Mr. Ben-Gvir hung a portrait in his home of an Israeli settler who shot dead 29 Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in 1994. As a teenager, Mr. Ben-Gvir was barred from army service because he was considered too extremist. He also describes a hard-line rabbi who wanted to strip Arab Israelis of their citizenship as his “hero.”Mr. Netanyahu attempted to calm fears about his return this week, promising in a speech on Wednesday morning that he would lead “a national government that will look after everyone.”He also pledged to heal the divisions within Israeli society, adding that the country “respects all its citizens.”But many in Israel’s Palestinian minority, which forms roughly a fifth of the population, remained unconvinced and afraid.“These are difficult days,” said Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian lawmaker in the Israeli Parliament. “This isn’t the ordinary, classic right that we know. This is a change — in which a racist, violent right-wing threatens to turn into fascism.”Myra Noveck More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Full Transcript of President Biden’s Speech on Democracy

      by

      President Biden delivered remarks Wednesday on democracy, political violence and the midterm elections in a televised address from Washington’s Union Station. The following is a transcript of his remarks, as recorded by The New York Times.Good evening, everyone.Just a few days ago, a little before 2:30 a.m. in the morning, a man smashed the back windows and broke into the home of the speaker of the House of Representatives, the third-highest-ranking official in America. He carried in his backpack zip ties, duct tape, rope and a hammer.As he told the police, he had come looking for Nancy Pelosi to take her hostage, to interrogate her, to threaten to break her kneecaps. But she wasn’t there. Her husband, my friend Paul Pelosi, was home alone. The assailant tried to take Paul hostage. He woke him up, and he wanted to tie him up. The assailant ended up using a hammer to smash Paul’s skull. Thankfully, by the grace of God, Paul survived.All this happened after the assault, and it just — it’s hard to even say. It’s hard to even say. After the assailant entered the home asking: “Where’s Nancy? Where’s Nancy?” Those are the very same words used by the mob when they stormed the United States Capitol on January the 6th, when they broke windows, kicked in the doors, brutally attacked law enforcement, roamed the corridors hunting for officials and erected gallows to hang the former vice president, Mike Pence.It was an enraged mob that had been whipped up into a frenzy by a president repeating over and over again the Big Lie, that the election of 2020 had been stolen. It’s a lie that fueled the dangerous rise in political violence and voter intimidation over the past two years.Even before January the 6th, we saw election officials and election workers in a number of states subject to menacing calls, physical threats, even threats to their very lives. In Georgia, for example, the Republican secretary of state and his family were subjected to death threats because he refused to break the law and give into the defeated president’s demand: Just find him 11,780 votes. Just find me 11,780 votes.Election workers, like Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, were harassed and threatened just because they had the courage to do their job and stand up for the truth, to stand up for our democracy. This institution, this intimidation, this violence against Democrats, Republicans and nonpartisan officials just doing their jobs, are the consequence of lies told for power and profit, lies of conspiracy and malice, lies repeated over and over to generate a cycle of anger, hate, vitriol and even violence.In this moment, we have to confront those lies with the truth. The very future of our nation depends on it. My fellow Americans, we’re facing a defining moment, an inflection point. We must with one overwhelming unified voice speak as a country and say there’s no place, no place for voter intimidation or political violence in America. Whether it’s directed at Democrats or Republicans. No place, period. No place ever.I speak today near Capitol Hill, near the U.S. Capitol, the citadel of our democracy. I know there’s a lot at stake in these midterm elections, from our economy, to the safety of our streets, to our personal freedoms, to the future of health care and Social Security, Medicare. It’s all important. But we’ll have our differences, we’ll have our difference of opinion. And that’s what it’s supposed to be.But there’s something else at stake, democracy itself. I’m not the only one who sees it. Recent polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Americans believe our democracy is at risk, that our democracy is under threat. They too see that democracy is on the ballot this year, and they’re deeply concerned about it.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Democrats’ Mounting Anxiety: Top Democratic officials are openly second-guessing their party’s pitch and tactics, saying Democrats have failed to unite around one central message.Social Security and Medicare: Republicans, eyeing a midterms victory, are floating changes to the safety net programs. Democrats have seized on the proposals to galvanize voters.Debunking Misinformation: Falsehoods and rumors are flourishing ahead of Election Day, especially in Pennsylvania. We debunked five of the most widespread voting-related claims.So today, I appeal to all Americans, regardless of party, to meet this moment of national and generational importance. We must vote knowing what’s at stake and not just the policy of the moment, but institutions that have held us together as we’ve sought a more perfect union are also at stake. We must vote knowing who we have been, what we’re at risk of becoming.Look, my fellow Americans, the old expression, “Freedom is not free,” it requires constant vigilance. From the very beginning, nothing has been guaranteed about democracy in America. Every generation has had to defend it, protect it, preserve it, choose it. For that’s what democracy is. It’s a choice, a decision of the people, by the people and for the people. The issue couldn’t be clearer, in my view.We the people must decide whether we will have fair and free elections, and every vote counts. We the people must decide whether we’re going to sustain a republic, where reality’s accepted, the law is obeyed and your vote is truly sacred.We the people must decide whether the rule of law will prevail or whether we will allow the dark forces and thirst for power put ahead of the principles that have long guided us.You know, American democracy is under attack because the defeated former president of the United States refused to accept the results of the 2020 election. If he refuses to accept the will of the people, if he refuses to accept the fact that he lost, he’s abused his power and put the loyalty to himself before loyalty to the Constitution. And he’s made a big lie an article of faith in the MAGA Republican Party, the minority of that party.The great irony about the 2020 election is that it’s the most attacked election in our history. And, yet, there’s no election in our history that we can be more certain of its results. Every legal challenge that could have been brought was brought. Every recount that could have been undertaken was undertaken. Every recount confirmed the results. Wherever fact or evidence had been demanded, the Big Lie has been proven to be just that, a big lie. Every single time.Yet now extreme MAGA Republicans aim to question not only the legitimacy of past elections, but elections being held now and into the future. The extreme MAGA element of the Republican Party, which is a minority of that party, as I said earlier, but it’s its driving force. It’s trying to succeed where they failed in 2020, to suppress the right of voters and subvert the electoral system itself. That means denying your right to vote and deciding whether your vote even counts.Instead of waiting until an election is over, they’re starting well before it. They’re starting now. They’ve emboldened violence and intimidation of voters and election officials. It’s estimated that there are more than 300 election deniers on the ballot all across America this year. We can’t ignore the impact this is having on our country. It’s damaging, it’s corrosive and it’s destructive.And I want to be very clear, this is not about me, it’s about all of us. It’s about what makes America America. It’s about the durability of our democracy. For democracies are more than a form of government. They’re a way of being, a way of seeing the world, a way that defines who we are, what we believe, why we do what we do. Democracy is simply that fundamental.We must, in this moment, dig deep within ourselves and recognize that we can’t take democracy for granted any longer. With democracy on the ballot, we have to remember these first principles. Democracy means the rule of the people, not the rule of monarchs or the moneyed, but the rule of the people.Autocracy is the opposite of democracy. It means the rule of one, one person, one interest, one ideology, one party. To state the obvious, the lives of billions of people, from antiquity till now, have been shaped by the battle between these competing forces, between the aspirations of the many and the greed and power of the few, between the people’s right for self-determination, and the self-seeking autocrat, between the dreams of a democracy and the appetites of an autocracy.What we’re doing now is going to determine whether democracy will long endure and, in my view, is the biggest of questions, whether the American system that prizes the individual bends toward justice and depends on the rule of law, whether that system will prevail. This is the struggle we’re now in, a struggle for democracy, a struggle for decency and dignity, a struggle for prosperity and progress, a struggle for the very soul of America itself.Make no mistake, democracy is on the ballot for all of us. We must remember that democracy is a covenant. We need to start looking out for each other again, seeing ourselves as we the people, not as entrenched enemies. This is a choice we can make. Disunion and chaos are not inevitable. There’s been anger before in America. There’s been division before in America. But we’ve never given up on the American experiment. And we can’t do that now.The remarkable thing about American democracy is this. Just enough of us on just enough occasions have chosen not to dismantle democracy, but to preserve democracy. We must choose that path again. Because democracy is on the ballot, we have to remember that even in our darkest moments, there are fundamental values and beliefs that unite us as Americans, and they must unite us now.What are they? Well, I think, first, we believe the vote in America’s sacred, to be honored, not denied; respected, not dismissed; counted, not ignored. A vote is not a partisan tool, to be counted when it helps your candidates and tossed aside when it doesn’t. Second, we must, with an overwhelming voice, stand against political violence and voter intimidation, period. Stand up and speak against it.We don’t settle our differences, America, with a riot, a mob, or a bullet, or a hammer. We settle them peacefully at the ballot box. We have to be honest with ourselves, though. We have to face this problem. We can’t turn away from it. We can’t pretend it’s just going to solve itself.There’s an alarming rise in the number of our people in this country condoning political violence, or simply remaining silent, because silence is complicity. To the disturbing rise of voter intimidation, the pernicious tendency to excuse political violence or at least, at least trying to explain it away. We can’t allow this sentiment to grow. We must confront it head on now. It has to stop now.I believe the voices excusing or calling for violence and intimidation are a distinct minority in America. But they’re loud, and they are determined. We have to be more determined. All of us who reject political violence and voter intimidation, and I believe that’s the overwhelming majority of the American people, all of us must unite to make it absolutely clear that violence and intimidation have no place in America.And, third, we believe in democracy. That’s who we are as Americans. I know it isn’t easy. Democracy’s imperfect. It always has been. But you’re all called to defend it now, now. History and common sense tell us that liberty, opportunity and justice thrive in a democracy, not in an autocracy.At our best, America’s not a zero-sum society or for you to succeed, someone else has to fail. A promise in America is big enough, is big enough, for everyone to succeed. Every generation opening the door of opportunity just a little bit wider. Every generation including those who’ve been excluded before.We believe we should leave no one behind, because each one of us is a child of God, and every person, every person is sacred. If that’s true, then every person’s rights must be sacred as well. Individual dignity, individual worth, individual determination, that’s America, that’s democracy and that’s what we have to defend.Look, even as I speak here tonight, 27 million people have already cast their ballot in the midterm elections. Millions more will cast their ballots in the final days leading up to November the 9th — 8th, excuse me. And for the first time — this is the first time since the national election of 2020.Once again we’re seeing record turnout all over the country. And that’s good. We want Americans to vote. We want every American’s voice to be heard. Now we have to move the process forward. We know that more and more ballots are cast in early voting or by mail in America. We know that many states don’t start counting those ballots till after the polls close on Nov. 8.That means in some cases we won’t know the winner of the election for a few days — until a few days after the election. It takes time to count all legitimate ballots in a legal and orderly manner. It’s always been important for citizens in the democracy to be informed and engaged. Now it’s important for a citizen to be patient as well. That’s how this is supposed to work.This is also the first election since the events of Jan. 6 when the armed, angry mob stormed the U.S. Capitol. I wish I could say the assault on our democracy ended that day, but I cannot.As I stand here today, there are candidates running for every level of office in America — for governor, Congress, attorney general, secretary of state — who won’t commit, that will not commit to accepting the results of the election that they’re running in. This is a path to chaos in America. It’s unprecedented. It’s unlawful, and it’s un-American.As I’ve said before, you can’t love your country only when you win. This is no ordinary year. So I ask you to think long and hard about the moment we’re in. In a typical year, we’re often not faced with questions of whether the vote we cast will preserve democracy or put us at risk. But this year we are. This year I hope you’ll make the future of our democracy an important part of your decision to vote and how you vote.I hope you’ll ask a simple question of each candidate you might vote for. Will that person accept the legitimate will of the American people and the people voting in his district or her district? Will that person accept the outcome of the election, win or lose? The answer to that question is vital. And, in my opinion, it should be decisive. And the answer to that question hangs in the future of the country we love so much, and the fate of the democracy that has made so much possible for us.Too many people have sacrificed too much for too many years for us to walk away from the American project and democracy. Because we’ve enjoyed our freedoms for so long, it’s easy to think they’ll always be with us no matter what. But that isn’t true today. In our bones, we know democracy is at risk. But we also know this. It’s within our power, each and every one of us, to preserve our democracy.And I believe we will. I think I know this country. I know we will. You have the power, it’s your choice, it’s your decision, the fate of the nation, the fate of the soul of America lies where it always does, with the people, in your hands, in your heart, in your ballot.My fellow Americans, we’ll meet this moment. We just need to remember who we are. We are the United States of America. There’s nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.May God bless you all. May God protect our troops. May God bless those standing guard over our democracy. Thank you, and godspeed. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Oath Keepers Leader Sought to Get Message to Trump After Jan. 6

      by

      One of the government’s final witnesses in the seditious conspiracy trial of members of the far-right group described attempts by Stewart Rhodes to urge Donald J. Trump to keep his grip on power.Four days after the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia, held a secret meeting in the parking lot of a Texas electronics store.Mr. Rhodes had gone to see a soldier-turned-I.T.-expert who, he had been told, could get an urgent message to President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Rhodes wanted to persuade Mr. Trump to maintain his grip on power despite the violence at the Capitol and offered to mobilize the members of his group to help him stay in office.“I’m here for you and so are all of my men,” Mr. Rhodes wrote to Mr. Trump, typing his words into a cellphone and handing it to the man in the belief that he would pass the message on to the president. “We will come help you if you need us. Military and police. And so will your millions of supporters.”A description of that cloak-and-dagger scene was offered to the jury on Wednesday at the trial of Mr. Rhodes and four of his subordinates, all of whom are facing charges of seditious conspiracy in connection with the attack on the Capitol. By the end of the day, prosecutors at the trial had all but reached the end of their evidence and were expected to rest their case on Thursday morning.When the government’s presentation concludes it will be a milestone in the trial, which is taking place in Federal District Court in Washington. It will also be an important step for the Justice Department’s broader investigation of the Capitol assault.The seditious conspiracy charges confronting Mr. Rhodes and his co-defendants — Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins and Thomas Caldwell — are among the most severe and politically significant to have been filed so far against any of the 900 people charged in connection with Jan. 6.The success or failure of the prosecution could influence how the storming of the Capitol is perceived by the public and affect another trial set for mid-December in which five members of another far-right group, the Proud Boys, also stand accused of seditious conspiracy.Some of the strongest evidence prosecutors have presented to the jury has come directly from the mouth of Mr. Rhodes.Jim Urquhart/ReutersAs one of their final witnesses, prosecutors called to the stand the man who met with Mr. Rhodes in Texas: Jason Alpers, a software designer who helped found a cybersecurity firm called Allied Security Operations Group. The company was instrumental in working with outside advisers to Mr. Trump — including the lawyer Sidney Powell — in promoting a conspiracy theory that voting machines had been used to cheat in the 2020 election.Mr. Alpers, a former Army psychological operations expert, told the jury that he met Mr. Rhodes and a lawyer, Kellye SoRelle, on Jan. 10, 2021, outside a Fry’s Electronics store near Dallas. He offered his phone to Mr. Rhodes as a means of conveying a message to Mr. Trump, but ultimately gave both the phone and a recording of the encounter to the F.B.I.In the recording, which was played on Wednesday for the jury, Mr. Rhodes can be heard telling Mr. Alpers that if Mr. Trump did not hold on to power, there would be “combat here on U.S. soil” and that thousands of Oath Keepers would most likely join the fray.When Mr. Alpers told Mr. Rhodes that he did not want civil war and did not condone the chaos at the Capitol, the Oath Keepers leader said that he had only one regret about that day.“We should have brought rifles,” Mr. Rhodes said, adding, “We could have fixed it right then and there.”Mr. Alpers said he was horrified by Mr. Rhodes’s remarks and had second thoughts about passing any messages to Mr. Trump or to people in his orbit.“Asking for civil war to be on American ground and, understanding as a person who has gone to war, that means blood is going to get shed on the streets where your family is,” he testified. “That’s not a distant land, that’s right there.”From the outset of the trial, some of the strongest evidence prosecutors have presented to the jury has come directly from the mouth of Mr. Rhodes, who has emerged as a man obsessed with supporting Mr. Trump and keeping Joseph R. Biden Jr. out of the White House. Recordings and text messages have shown Mr. Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper with a law degree from Yale, to have been in thrall to baseless fears that Mr. Biden was a “puppet” of the Chinese government bent on the destruction of the country he had just been chosen to lead.One former member of the group testified last month that he had called the authorities in November 2020 after sitting through a video meeting during which Mr. Rhodes urged his followers to “fight” on behalf of Mr. Trump.“The more I listened to the call,” the witness, Abdullah Rasheed, told the jury, “it sounded like we were going to war against the United States government.”Other former Oath Keepers have testified that they believed Mr. Rhodes’s language about using violence to support Mr. Trump and his personal attacks against Mr. Biden became increasingly extreme, even dangerous, in the months between the election and the final certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6.One former member told the jury that he quit the organization in December 2020 after Mr. Rhodes posted a letter on the Oath Keepers’ website urging Mr. Trump to seize data from voting machines across the country that would purportedly prove the election had been rigged. In the letter, Mr. Rhodes also begged Mr. Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, a more than two-centuries-old law that he believed would give the president the power to call up militias like his own to suppress the “coup” that was seeking to unseat him.In the message Mr. Rhodes sought to pass through Mr. Alpers, he warned Mr. Trump that he and his family would be “imprisoned and killed” if Mr. Biden managed to take office, urging him to use “the power of the presidency” to stop his opponent.“Go down in history as a savior of the Republic,” Mr. Rhodes wrote, “not a man who surrendered it to deadly traitors and enemies who then enslaved and murdered millions of Americans.”Despite the efforts by prosecutors to depict Mr. Rhodes as a man prepared to derail the election, as one trial witness put it, “by any means necessary,” some government witnesses have admitted under questioning from the defense that they were not aware of any predetermined plan to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6 and interfere with the certification process.To win a conviction on the seditious conspiracy charge, prosecutors need to convince the jury that Mr. Rhodes and his co-defendants entered into an agreement to use force to disrupt the execution of laws governing the transfer of presidential power.A video of Mr. Rhodes speaking during an interview with the House Jan. 6 committee was shown at a hearing in June.Andrew Harnik/Associated PressFor reasons that remain unclear, prosecutors decided not to call as witnesses any of the three former Oath Keepers who pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy charges and cooperated with the government’s investigation of Mr. Rhodes and his co-defendants.One of the cooperating witnesses, William Todd Wilson, told the government during his plea negotiations that on the evening of Jan. 6, Mr. Rhodes was still trying to persuade Mr. Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. By Mr. Wilson’s account, Mr. Rhodes tried to get an intermediary to call the president from a hotel near the Capitol and have him mobilize the Oath Keepers to forcibly stop the transition of power.Another cooperating witness, Joshua James, was poised to testify that Mr. Rhodes at one point hatched a plan to have a group of Oath Keepers surround the White House and keep away anyone — including members of the National Guard — who tried to remove Mr. Trump from the building.Before the defense begins its case, lawyers for Mr. Rhodes and the others are likely to make arguments seeking to dismiss the charges, claiming a lack of evidence — a common maneuver in criminal trials.Mr. Rhodes, who has promised from the start that he will testify, could take the witness stand by the end of the week. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How the Right Became the Left and the Left Became the Right

      by

      One of the master keys to understanding our era is seeing all the ways in which conservatives and progressives have traded attitudes and impulses. The populist right’s attitude toward American institutions has the flavor of the 1970s — skeptical, pessimistic, paranoid — while the mainstream, MSNBC-watching left has a strange new respect for the F.B.I. and C.I.A. The online right likes transgression for its own sake, while cultural progressivism dabbles in censorship and worries that the First Amendment goes too far. Trumpian conservatism flirts with postmodernism and channels Michel Foucault; its progressive rivals are institutionalist, moralistic, confident in official narratives and establishment credentials.These reversals are especially evident in a pair of prominent headlines from the last week. If you had been told at any point from, say, 1970 to 2005 that a disturbed-seeming man living in the Bay Area with a history of involvement with nudist activists and the hemp jewelry trade had allegedly followed his paranoid political delusions into a plan to assault an important national politician, the reasonable assumption would have been that his delusions belonged to the farthest reaches of the left and therefore his target was probably some notable Republican.By the same token, if you had been told in George W. Bush’s presidency that a trove of government documents would reveal the Department of Homeland Security essentially trying to collude with major corporations to regulate speech it considers dangerous or subversive, an effort extending from foreign threats to domestic ones, you would have assumed that this was all Republican overreach, a new McCarthyism — and that progressives would be up in arms against it.In our world, though, things are otherwise. The man who allegedly attacked Paul Pelosi while hunting the speaker of the House did, seemingly, belong to left-wing, Left Coast culture in the not-so-distant past. But at some point in his unhappy trajectory, he passed over to the paranoias of the extreme right — probably not in some semi-rational radicalization process in which he watched too many attack ads against Nancy Pelosi but more likely in a dreamlike way, the nightmares of QAnon matching his mental state better‌ than the paranoias of the left.His journey’s violent endpoint was singular and extreme, but this kind of left-to-right migration has more normal correlatives: the New Age-QAnon overlap, the Covid-era migration of formerly left-wing skeptics of Big Pharma onto right-wing shows and platforms, the way that all doubts about the medical establishment are now coded as right-wing, Trumpy, populist.And the political right’s response to the Pelosi attack reflects these shifts as well. The ethos of Fox Mulder in “The X-Files,” “Trust no one,” is a now dominant value on the right, which in this case encouraged a swift leap from reasonable questions about the details of the assault, based on inaccurate initial reports, to a very specific narrative about a gay assignation that the cops and the Pelosis were presumably covering up.As of this writing, several public references to this theory from prominent conservatives have been deleted. But the cover-up narrative will probably survive indefinitely as a reference point, an underground “truth,” like the left-wing conspiracies of old.One of those deleted tweets belonged to Elon Musk, the new impresario of Twitter, and it inevitably became an exhibit in the case for liberal panic over his takeover: What could be more indicative of the platform’s imminent descent into a democracy-destroying hellscape than conspiracy theories spread by the Chief Twit himself?But the alternative to Musk’s reign was clarified by the second recent illustration of our left-right reversal: a story from The Intercept, by Lee Fang and Ken Klippenstein, detailing the Department of Homeland Security’s migration into the social-media surveillance and the pressure the department has tried to exert on internet companies to flag and censor content along lines favored by the national security bureaucracy.On the surface, this is not a partisan story: The Intercept is a left-wing publication, and the current version of the D.H.S. anti-disinformation effort got started in the Trump administration.But everyone understands those efforts’ current ideological valence. The war on disinformation is a crucial Democratic cause, the key lawsuit filed against the Biden administration on these issues comes from Republican attorneys general (joined by doctors critical of the public-health establishment), and the most famous flashpoint remains the social-media censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, which Fang and Klippenstein suggest followed from what one could reasonably call a deep-state pressure campaign.Meanwhile, according to a draft report from the D.H.S. obtained by The Intercept, the list of online subject areas that the department is particularly concerned about includes “the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine” — mostly areas where, whether in wisdom or in folly, the populist right is more likely to dissent from the establishment position.And for the future of Twitter, in particular, it’s notable that the Intercept story first points out that a committee advising DHS on disinformation policy included Twitter’s then-head of legal policy, trust and safety, Vijaya Gadde, and then notes that Gadde was one of the first people fired by Musk. It’s a tacit nod to the left-right switch: Under Musk the social-media giant is widely seen as moving “rightward,” but that could mean becoming less entangled with an arm of what was once George W. Bush’s national security state.The point of emphasizing this reversal isn’t to suggest that either side is likely to flip back. The evolving attitudes of right and left reflect their evolving positions in American society, with cultural liberalism much more dominant in elite institutions than it was a generation ago and conservatism increasingly disreputable, representing downscale constituencies and outsider ideas.But a stronger awareness of the flip might be helpful in tempering the temptations that afflict both sides. For progressives, that could mean acknowledging that the Department of Homeland Security’s disinformation wars, its attempted hand-in-glove with the great powers of Silicon Valley, would have been regarded as a dystopian scenario on their side not so long ago. So is it really any less dystopian if the targets are Trumpistas and Anthony Fauci critics instead of Iraq War protesters? And if it is a little creepy and censorious and un-American, doesn’t that make some of the paranoia evident on the right these days a little less unfathomable and fascist seeming, even a little more relatable?Then the Fox Mulder right might benefit from recalling the thing that conservatives — or this conservative, at least — used to find most insufferable about the anti-establishment left, which was not its skepticism but its credulity, not the eagerness to question official narratives but the speed with which implausible alternatives took root. (If parts of Oliver Stone’s “J.F.K.” make you understand where conspiracy theories come from, the part where the conspiracy gets “explained” should make you a Nixon Republican.)This is the key problem with the right today, whether the issue is the 2020 election or the Covid-vaccine debate or the attack on Paul Pelosi. Not the baseline of skepticism, not being attuned to weaknesses and inconsistencies in official narratives, not being open to scenarios of elite self-dealing and conspiracy and cover-up, all of which emphatically exist. It’s the swift replacement of skepticism with certainty, the shopping around for any narrative — even if it comes from Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell — to vindicate your initial theory, the refusal to accept that even institutions you reasonably mistrust sometimes get things right.Or to put this in terms of Musk and his hopes for Twitter: The ideal virtual town square would be a place where conservatives could discuss speculative, even conspiratorial theories of the day’s events — but also a place where they could be persuaded to abandon bad theories when the evidence dissolves them.Social-media and tribal incentives being what they are, that seems exceedingly unlikely. But if I had just paid billions to own a social media platform — and become both its main character and arguably the most important right-leaning figure in American life, pending the Donald Trump-Ron De‌ ‌Santis slugfest — I would be thinking about what it would take for a spirit of contrarianism and rebellion to aim, not simply at transgression, but at truth itself.In addition to my two weekly columns, I’m starting a newsletter, which will go out most Fridays and cover some of my usual obsessions — political ideas, religion, pop culture, decadence — in even more detail. You can subscribe here.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More