More stories

  • in

    With Cabinet Picks, Trump Seeks to Inject Hyper Masculinity into Washington

    The hyper-macho and online energy of the Trump campaign is now aimed at Washington.It used to be that the perfect cabinet pick was a steady, behind-the-scenes expert who wouldn’t take too much attention away from the president.Think James Baker III, the Princeton-educated lawyer who played tennis with George H.W. Bush, became Ronald Reagan’s Treasury secretary and was later named Bush’s secretary of state. Or Condoleezza Rice, who spent her career in government and academia before becoming a stalwart in the cabinet of George W. Bush.That era ended this week, its demise encapsulated by a single word: “doge.”With his early selections for cabinet and other high-level posts, President-elect Donald Trump is taking the bomb-throwing, hyper-macho and preternaturally online energy that infused his campaign and seeking to inject it directly into Washington’s veins.He has asked Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead an initiative to cut government waste named for the elder statesman of online memes, Doge. He has chosen Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose skepticism of basic measures like vaccines has haunted public health officials for years, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, a $1.6 trillion agency charged with ensuring the “well-being of all Americans.” And he wants former Representative Matt Gaetz, a chest-thumping Trump loyalist who has been investigated on suspicion of sex trafficking and accused of showing colleagues nude photos of women on the House floor (and who has denied both accusations), to be his attorney general.What Trump is proposing could bust norms, pave the way for his promises of retribution and make the institutions that stood in his way during his first term more pliant. It’s effectively government by bro — and it seems that the more you’ve trolled the establishment, the better your chances are of being invited by the president-elect to join it.POTUS, U.F.C.-styleTrump’s presidential campaign was a celebration of masculine kitsch. It created multiple opportunities for Hulk Hogan to rip off his shirt in front of the president-elect’s most devoted followers and ended with the Ultimate Fighting Championship chief executive Dana White taking the stage as Trump declared victory.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Who Are the Next Leaders of the Democratic Party?

    Democrats will soon have a leadership vacuum, and there will be no shortage of highly ambitious governors, senators and transportation secretaries looking to fill it.American presidential elections tend to be a zero-sum game for the parties and their voters. Win, and everything is great. Lose, and your party is rudderless, leaderless and powerless.So it goes for the Democrats after Vice President Kamala Harris’s defeat to former President Donald J. Trump. Questions about who will lead the party, and in what direction, will be hotly debated as officials explore what went wrong and forge plans to oppose the next Trump administration.Jockeying has already begun, and not all ambition may be rewarded. Appearing too eager to seize the opportunity presented by Ms. Harris’s defeat could backfire if Democrats are not ready to move forward. But if the period after the 2016 election is any guide, scores of Democratic figures and groups will try to fill the leadership void created as President Biden leaves office.Four years is a very long time in politics. In that time, Barack Obama went from a state senator to a presidential nominee. In even less time than that, Mr. Trump transformed from being a reality show figure pushing a racist lie about Mr. Obama to president himself. It is not out of the question that the Democrats’ next leader is not someone on the nation’s radar today.With those caveats, here’s a look at six groups of people who could determine which direction Democrats take as the second Trump administration unfolds.Kamala Harris and Tim WalzMs. Harris and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota campaigning in August in Philadelphia. In his own concession speech last week, Mr. Walz signaled that he was eager to remain relevant in the party.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Tim Walz Heads Home to the Minnesota State Fair

    Shortly after Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was tapped by Vice President Kamala Harris to be her running mate, a photo of Mr. Walz at the Minnesota State Fair in 2019 went viral.He wore a gold University of Minnesota T-shirt, a maroon University of Minnesota hat emblazoned with the Gophers mascot and a smile that his face could barely contain. In his arms was a small, sleeping piglet.It was peak Midwestern dad energy — one of the regular-guy reasons that Ms. Harris chose him to join the Democratic ticket despite his limited national profile. Over the last few weeks, Mr. Walz has been on a whirlwind tour introducing himself to the rest of the country. He has campaigned before crowds of over 10,000 in battleground states like Wisconsin and Georgia; hosted fund-raisers in California and Maryland; and completed his transformation into a party leader with a rousing speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.But Mr. Walz will need no introduction when he steps back onto the grounds of the Minnesota State Fair in St. Paul on Sunday, where he is expected to make a campaign stop.“Oh, he is?!” asked Keri Huber, an archivist at the fair. To be sure, it was no surprise to her, but she had yet to hear the news because, she explained, she had been on the grounds, working nonstop.Like other state fairs happening across the nation, the Minnesota State Fair, affectionately known as the Great Minnesota Get Together, has a storied political tradition as a spot to woo voters in a less-scripted forum. Over the years, it has been an opportunity for once and future officeholders to appear, well, normal, while chowing down pronto pups — which, depending on whom you ask, are not so different from corn dogs — and buckets of Sweet Martha’s cookies and posing for photos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    In the Aging Senate, 80-Somethings Seeking Re-election Draw Little Criticism

    While President Biden tries to assuage voter concerns about his age in a presidential race that includes the two oldest men ever to seek the White House, a couple of miles away in the U.S. Senate, the gerontocracy remains alive and well — and little commented upon.The recent news that two octogenarians — Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, 82, and Angus King of Maine, 80 — are each running for another six-year term generated little in the way of criticism or worry over age of the kind that Mr. Biden has faced.Their races, which both men are likely to win, are a reminder of how the Senate’s roster is chock-full of lawmakers staying in office at an age when most people are well into retirement. At the start of this Congress last year, the average age of elected officials was 64 in the Senate and 57.9 in the House.“They’re not in short supply around here,” Senator Peter Welch of Vermont, 77, said of octogenarians.Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader who swept aside concerns about his health after experiencing two freezes on camera last year, plans to step down from leadership at the end of this year. But Mr. McConnell, 82, has not committed either way to retiring or running again when his term ends in 2027.President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump are the two oldest men ever to seek the White House.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Arrest Made in Fire Set Outside Bernie Sanders’s Office in Vermont

    Prosecutors and the police did not identify a possible motive for the fire, which was started on Friday. No one was injured.The authorities in Vermont arrested a man they said used an accelerant and a lighter to start a fire on Friday outside of Senator Bernie Sanders’s office in Burlington.The man, Shant Soghomonian (also known as Michael Soghomonian), 35, previously of Northridge, Calif., was arrested on Sunday on a charge of using fire to damage the building at One Church Street in Burlington, Vt., the U.S. Attorney’s office for the district of Vermont said in a statement on Sunday.Prosecutors and the police did not identify a possible motive for the fire. The office said that a lawyer for Mr. Soghomonian had not yet been identified. Officials did not provide a current address for Mr. Soghomonian.On Friday morning, according to prosecutors and the Burlington Police Department, Mr. Soghomonian walked into the vestibule of the senator’s office, where a security camera captured him as he sprayed an “apparent accelerant” near the outer door of the office.Mr. Soghomonian then used a lighter and “a blaze quickly began” as he fled via a staircase, prosecutors said. The blaze set off the building’s sprinklers on multiple floors.The sprinklers extinguished the fire before firefighters arrived around 10:45 a.m., the police said.The senator’s office was occupied at the time by multiple employees. It was not known how many other people were in the building at the time, but no injuries were reported, the authorities said.Senator Sanders, an independent from Vermont, was not in his office at the time of the fire, his office said in a statement on Friday.“A special thank you to Burlington Police Department detectives, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the integral role they played in bringing swift resolution to this investigation,” the mayor of Burlington, Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, said in a statement.An initial court appearance has not been scheduled for Mr. Soghomonian.If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, prosecutors said. More

  • in

    Man Set Fire Outside Bernie Sanders’s Vermont Office, Police Say

    The authorities are trying to identify an arsonist who struck outside the U.S. senator’s office in Burlington, Vt. No one was injured, and the senator was not there.The authorities in Vermont said they were searching for a man who started a fire outside Senator Bernie Sanders’s office in Burlington on Friday morning.The unidentified man walked into the vestibule of Senator Sanders’s office and sprayed an “apparent accelerant” on the entrance door to the third-floor office, before lighting the accelerant and fleeing, the Burlington Police Department said in a statement. It was unclear exactly what the man sprayed on the door.“A significant fire engulfed the door and part of the vestibule,” which prevented staff members who were working inside the office from exiting, the Police Department said.The building’s sprinkler system activated, which mostly put out the fire before firefighters arrived around 10:45 a.m., the Police Department said.A surveillance photo of a man the police say set a fire outside Senator Bernie Sanders’s office in Burlington, Vt., Friday morning.Burlington Police DepartmentThe Burlington Fire Department said that the door to the senator’s office “sustained moderate” damage from the fire, and that the third floor of the building and the floors below it also had water damage.No injuries were reported. Senator Sanders, independent of Vermont, was not at the office at the time of the fire, his office said in a statement.Investigators with the Vermont State Police determined that the fire was an act of arson. The authorities had not concluded a motive.The Police Department released a photo from surveillance footage of the man who started the fire. In the photo, he is wearing a black jacket, dark-colored pants, white sneakers and an orange beanie.Kathryn Van Haste, the Vermont state director for Senator Sanders, said in a statement, “We are grateful to the Burlington Fire and Police Departments who responded immediately today to a fire incident that took place in our office building.”The United States Capitol Police and the Senate sergeant-at-arms were working with local authorities in Burlington investigating the fire, Ms. Van Haste said.Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak of Burlington said in a statement that she was “relieved to hear that everyone made it out safely.” More

  • in

    What Are Young Voters Looking For?

    Want to ruin a Democratic strategist’s New Year? Bring up President Biden’s popularity problem with younger voters.The strategist may start furiously tap-dancing about this outreach plan or that policy achievement. But she has seen the polling trend line. She has heard the focus groups. She knows that millennials and Gen Z-ers are not feeling the Biden love. Many are threatening to sit out next year’s election. Some are flirting with supporting Donald Trump — or a third-party rando.And even if only a few of them follow through, the president and his party could be in big trouble. Americans younger than 45 have saved the Democrats from disaster in multiple recent elections. Their creeping alienation has the blue team rattled and raging: For the love of God, what will it take to lock in these voters?!This is not a new question. The political world, especially the Democratic Party, has long been in search of the secret formula for wooing younger voters to the polls. Strategists noodle over which issues members of this cohort care about, which candidates they connect with, how best to reach them. In 1994, Bill Clinton ventured onto MTV and overshared about his underwear in an effort to impress the young ’uns. Now that is desperation.Spoiler: There is no secret formula. Or rather, there is a whole host of formulas with scores of constantly shifting variables. Millennials and Gen Z-ers don’t just expect different things from candidates than do older voters; they approach the entire concept of voting differently, generally in ways that make them harder to persuade and mobilize.The people who obsess about this issue for a living can overwhelm you with data and analysis, competing priorities and suggestions. Even the bits they think they have figured out can abruptly shift. (Just when some thought they had a solid grip on this election, along came the war in Gaza.) All that, of course, is on top of the concrete systemic challenges of getting younger people registered for, informed about and comfortable with voting in general.As a close friend who spent years neck deep in the political weeds of cultivating younger voters observed, “The big theme is that there is no theme.”And yet there are a few recurring subthemes that bubble up when you talk with the professionals and with the younger voters themselves. These insights won’t crack the turnout code. Or necessarily save Mr. Biden’s presidency. But they do shed light on some of the more amorphous reasons younger Americans are so hard to turn out — and can maybe even point a way forward.“The No. 1 rule when you’re talking about young people: They may be progressive, but they are not Democrats,” warned Joshua Ulibarri, a partner with the Democratic polling firm Lake Research Partners. “They don’t turn out for parties.”Younger Americans may vote more Democratic than their elders, but that does not mean they want to join the team. And while their politics are generally to the left of the party’s center of gravity, this isn’t merely a matter of ideology.“Parties are institutions, and Gen Z-ers aren’t really into institutions,” said Morley Winograd, a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy at the University of Southern California. The research on Gen Z-ers indicates they have little trust in most major U.S. institutions, and it’s hard to get more establishment or institutional than a political party. Certainly among the Gen Z-ers I know (I have kids, and they have friends), maintaining their independence from and skepticism of a compromised political establishment they feel is not working for them is a point of pride.Today’s hyperpartisan system, with its Manichaean mentality, can make parties even more unappealing for younger voters, said John Della Volpe, the director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, whose specialty is younger voters. “They are not willing to take that responsibility to have to defend one party and create an enemy of the other.”And definitely don’t expect them to be moved by appeals to help a party take control of Congress or even the White House, Mr. Ulibarri said.Younger voters also are less inclined to turn out simply because they like a candidate’s personality. Now and then, one comes along who inspires them (think Barack Obama) or, alternatively, outrages them enough to make them turn out in protest (think Donald Trump). But more often they are driven by issues that speak to their lives, their core values or, ideally, both.The most outstanding current example of this is the issue of abortion rights, which has emerged as a red-hot electoral force since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Younger voters express anxiety about the practical repercussions of this decision and fury at the government intrusion into people’s personal lives. The issue has a clarity, immediacy and tangibility that appeal to younger voters. This is especially true when it appears as a stand-alone ballot initiative.Younger voters’ focus on issues and values rather than candidates and parties raises the question of whether ballot initiatives could be a way to engage them and propel them to the polls. Supporting such measures is more straightforward than embracing candidates. Plus, they have the advantage of not being (or at least not seeming) as entangled with a particular party. They have more of a direct-democracy vibe. (Please refer to: Institutions suck.) How much more satisfying is it to vote for an issue you are passionate about than for some flawed politician with a fake smile making promises you’re pretty sure he won’t keep?Supporting a candidate, any candidate, means accepting that person’s foibles and flaws along with the good parts. It requires balancing multiple concerns and priorities. And the longer the candidate’s record in public office, the more variables there are to consider. Just take the example currently giving the Biden campaign the worst nightmares: For progressives, at what point does Mr. Biden’s handling of Gaza outweigh his embrace of, say, combating climate change or protecting abortion access or supporting labor unions? What if the only alternative is another Trump term?For younger voters who reject the team mentality of party voting, these equations get complicated and frustrating — often frustrating enough to just skip voting altogether. When researchers ask younger people why they don’t vote, one of the top responses, if not the top one, is: I didn’t feel I knew enough about the candidates.Part of younger voters’ disenchantment may be wrapped up in the nature of progressivism. Younger voters tend to be more progressive than older ones, and progressives, by definition, want government to do more, change more, make more progress. You often hear variations on: Sure, the president did ABC, but what we really need is DEFGHIJXYZ. Or: This climate initiative/health care plan/caregiving investment/pick your policy achievement doesn’t go nearly far enough.This is not to suggest that Mr. Biden hasn’t racked up some notable missteps (Afghanistan!) and failed promises (the student debt mess). But expectations are an inextricable factor. Harvard’s Theda Skocpol refers to “the presidential illusion” among those on the political left, the longstanding idea that the president is a sort of political Svengali and that federal leadership can counter conservatism in states and localities. When reality sets in, these supporters are not shy about expressing their disappointment.Of course, most voting in America calls for choosing between candidates, in all their messy imperfection. Younger voters are less likely than older ones to have resigned themselves to this, to have curbed their expectations and idealism. So where does all this leave campaigns and, trickier still, parties desperate to win over younger voters?Younger voters need to be reminded of the concrete changes their votes can effect. Because of the 2020 election, the Biden administration has pushed through a major investment in fighting climate change; billions of dollars for infrastructure are flowing into communities, including rural, economically strapped areas; the first African American woman was appointed to the Supreme Court; many judges from notably diverse professional backgrounds have been placed on the lower courts, and so on.The dark corollary to this is detailing the explicit damage that can be done if young people opt out, an especially pressing threat with Mr. Trump on the vengeance trail. Separating migrant children from their parents at the southern border, stacking the Supreme Court with abortion-hostile justices, effectively declaring war on science — these were the fruits of the Trump administration. And that’s before you get to his persistent assault on democracy. Think of it all as his practice run, then imagine where another four years could take us.The key is figuring out and effectively communicating the right balance of positive and negative partisanship for the moment, said Mr. Della Volpe, stressing, “The recipe for 2020 will not be the same as 2024.”Another basic step: Candidates need to make clear that they understand and share younger voters’ values, even if they have different plans for working toward realizing their goals. Strategists point to the shrewd decision by Team Biden, after Senator Bernie Sanders dropped out of the 2020 primary contest, to form working groups with Mr. Sanders’s team, stressing their shared values. Connecting elections to something that resonates with younger voters — that is meaningful to their lives — is vital, said Abby Kiesa, the deputy director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, a research group at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life that focuses on youth civic engagement. Issue groups can play a useful role in this, she said.Most broadly, everyone from interest groups to parties to candidates needs to push the message that a democratically elected government can still achieve big things. This goes beyond any specific bill or appointee. Younger Americans aren’t convinced that government can make meaningful progress. Some days it is hard to blame them. But this cynicism has terrible implications for democracy, and all of us would do well to fight it.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

  • in

    La lección más importante de la victoria de Javier Milei

    La elección como presidente de Argentina de Javier Milei —un personaje peculiar, fanfarrón de cabello indomable, con cinco mastines clonados y una costumbre de comunión psíquica con la difunta mascota que les dio origen— ha suscitado un gran debate sobre la verdadera naturaleza del populismo de derecha en nuestra era de descontento general.En Milei hay muchas manifestaciones de una política trumpiana: la energía extravagante y poco convencional, la crítica a las élites corruptas, los ataques a la izquierda, el apoyo de los conservadores sociales y religiosos. Al mismo tiempo, en política económica es mucho más un libertario doctrinario que un mercantilista o populista al estilo Trump, es una versión más extrema de Barry Goldwater y Paul Ryan que un defensor del gasto público y los aranceles. Mientras que el movimiento al que derrotó, la formación peronista que gobernó Argentina durante la mayor parte del siglo XXI, es de hecho más nacionalista y populista en lo económico, pues llegó al poder tras la crisis financiera de 2001 que puso fin al experimento más notable de Argentina con la economía neoliberal.La divergencia entre Trump y Milei puede interpretarse de varias maneras. Una lectura es que el estilo del populismo de derecha es la esencia del asunto, que su sustancia política es negociable siempre que presente figuras que prometan el renacimiento nacional y encarnen algún tipo de rebelión bufonesca, por lo general masculina, contra las normas del progresismo cultural.Otra lectura es que, sí, la política es bastante negociable, pero en realidad hay profundas afinidades ideológicas entre el nacionalismo económico de derecha y lo que podría llamarse paleolibertarismo, a pesar de que no coinciden en cuestiones específicas. En términos estadounidenses, esto significa que el trumpismo lo anticiparon de diferentes maneras Ross Perot y Ron Paul; en términos globales, significa que cabe esperar que los partidos de la derecha populista se muevan constantemente entre tendencias de regulación y libertarias, dependiendo del contexto económico y de los vaivenes políticos.He aquí una tercera interpretación: mientras que el descontento popular debilitó el consenso neoliberal de las décadas de 1990 y 2000 en todo el mundo desarrollado, la era del populismo está creando alineamientos muy distintos en la periferia latinoamericana que en el núcleo euro-estadounidense.En Europa Occidental y Estados Unidos, ahora se ve de manera sistemática a un partido de centroizquierda de las clases profesionales enfrentarse a una coalición populista y de la clase trabajadora de derecha. Los partidos de centroizquierda se han vuelto más progresistas en política económica en comparación con la era de Bill Clinton y Tony Blair, pero se han movido mucho más a la izquierda en cuestiones culturales, sin perder su liderazgo influyente y meritocrático, su sabor neoliberal. Y, en su mayoría, han sido capaces de contener, derrotar o cooptar a aspirantes de izquierda más radicales: Joe Biden al superar a Bernie Sanders en las elecciones primarias demócratas de 2020, Keir Starmer al marginar al corbynismo en el Partido Laborista británico y Emmanuel Macron al forzar a los izquierdistas franceses a votar a su favor en la segunda vuelta contra Marine Le Pen con la estrategia del menor de los males.Por su parte, la derecha populista ha conseguido muchas veces moderar sus impulsos libertarios para apartar a los votantes de clase baja de la coalición progresista, dando lugar a una política de centroderecha que suele favorecer ciertos tipos de proteccionismo y redistribución. Eso podría significar una defensa trumpiana de los programas de prestaciones sociales, los tibios intentos de los conservadores de Boris Johnson de invertir en el desatendido norte de Inglaterra o el gasto en prestaciones familiares de Viktor Orbán en Hungría, así como la recién desbancada coalición populista en Polonia.Te puedes imaginar que el abismo entre estas dos coaliciones mantendrá a Occidente en un estado de crisis latente, en especial teniendo en cuenta la personalidad de Trump, tan propensa a las crisis. Pero también es posible imaginar un futuro en el que este orden se estabilice y normalice un poco y la gente deje de hablar de un terremoto cada vez que un populista asciende al poder o de que la democracia se salva cada vez que un partido del establishment gana unas elecciones.La situación es muy distinta en América Latina. Allí el consenso neoliberal siempre fue más endeble, el centro más frágil, y por ende la era de la rebelión populista ha creado una polarización más clara entre quien esté más a la izquierda y más a la derecha (con la izquierda culturalmente progresista, pero por lo general más expresamente socialista que Biden, Starmer o Macron y la derecha culturalmente tradicional, pero por lo general más libertaria que Trump, Orbán o Le Pen).La nueva alineación en Argentina, con su libertario revolucionario que supera a una izquierda populista-nacionalista, es un ejemplo de este patrón; la contienda entre Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva y Jair Bolsonaro en Brasil el año pasado fue otro. Pero los recientes vaivenes de la política chilena son de especial interés. A principios de la década de 2010, Chile parecía tener un entorno político más o menos estable, con un partido de centroizquierda que gobernaba a través de una Constitución favorable al mercado y una oposición de centroderecha que luchaba por distanciarse de la dictadura de Pinochet. Entonces, las protestas populares echaron por tierra este orden y crearon un giro abrupto hacia la izquierda, además de un intento de imponer una nueva Constitución de izquierda que, a su vez, provocó una reacción adversa, que dejó al país dividido entre un impopular gobierno de izquierda encabezado por un antiguo activista estudiantil y una oposición de derecha en ascenso temporal liderada por un apologista de Pinochet.En cada caso, en relación con las divisiones de Francia y Estados Unidos, se observa un centro más débil y una polarización más profunda entre extremos populistas rivales. Y ahora, si la cuestión para América Latina es qué tan estable será la propia democracia en condiciones tan polarizadas, la cuestión para Europa y Estados Unidos es si la situación argentina o chilena es un presagio de su propio futuro. Tal vez no de inmediato, pero sí después de una nueva ronda de rebeliones populistas, que podría aguardar más allá de alguna crisis o catástrofe o simplemente al otro lado del cambio demográfico.En tal futuro, figuras como Biden, Starmer y Macron ya no podrían gestionar coaliciones de gobierno y la iniciativa en la izquierda pasaría a partidos más radicales como Podemos en España o los Verdes en Alemania, a los progresistas al estilo de Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, a cualquier tipo de política que surja del encuentro entre la izquierda europea y las crecientes poblaciones árabes y musulmanas del continente. Esto daría a la derecha populista la oportunidad de prometer estabilidad y reclamar el centro, pero también crearía incentivos para que la derecha se radicalice aún más, lo que produciría mayores oscilaciones ideológicas cada vez que perdiera una coalición en el poder.Esta es, en cierto modo, la lección más clara de la victoria aplastante de Milei: si no se puede alcanzar la estabilidad tras una ronda de convulsiones populistas, no hay límites inherentes a lo desenfrenado que puede llegar a ser el siguiente ciclo de rebelión.Ross Douthat es columnista de opinión del Times desde 2009. Es autor, más recientemente, de The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery. @DouthatNYT • Facebook More