United States International Relations

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Could the Next Republican President Take Us to War With Mexico?

      by

      As president, Donald Trump reportedly floated the idea of shooting “missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs.” When his defense secretary, Mark Esper, raised various objections, he recalls that Mr. Trump responded by saying the bombing could be done “quietly”: “No one would know it was us.”Well, word got out and the craze caught on. Now many professed rebel Republicans, such as Representatives Mike Waltz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, along with several old G.O.P. war horses, like Senator Lindsey Graham, want to bomb Mexico. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida said he would send special forces into Mexico on “Day 1” of his presidency, targeting drug cartels and fentanyl labs. In May, Representative Michael McCaul, another Republican, introduced a bill pushing for fentanyl to be listed as a chemical weapon, like sarin gas, under the Chemical Weapons Convention. This move targeted Mexican cartels and Chinese companies, which are accused of providing the ingredients to the cartels to manufacture fentanyl.Of course, the United States is already fighting, and has been for half a century, a highly militarized drug war — in the Andes, Central America and, yes, Mexico — a war as ineffective as it has been cruel. Hitting fentanyl labs won’t do anything to slow the bootlegged versions of the drug into the United States but could further destabilize northern Mexico and the borderlands, worsening the migrant refugee crisis.Addiction to fentanyl, a drug that is 50 times stronger than heroin, affects red and blue states alike, from West Virginia to Maine, with overdoses annually killing tens of thousands of Americans. It’s a bipartisan crisis. Yet in our topsy-turvy culture wars, there’s a belief that fentanyl is targeting the Republican base. J.D. Vance rose to national fame in 2016 with a book that blamed the white rural poor’s cultural pathologies for their health crises, including drug addiction. In 2022, during his successful run for Ohio’s Senate seat, Mr. Vance, speaking with a right-wing conspiracy theorist, said that “if you wanted to kill a bunch of MAGA voters in the middle of the heartland, how better than to target them and their kids with this deadly fentanyl?” Mr. Vance’s poll numbers shot up after that, and other Republicans in close House and Senate races took up the issue, linking fentanyl deaths to Democratic policies on border security and crime and calling for military action against Mexico.The Mexican government is in fact cooperating with the United States to limit the export of the drug, recently passing legislation limiting the import of chemicals required for its production and stepping up prosecution of fentanyl producers. And even some of the cartels have reportedly spread the message to their foot soldiers, telling them to stop producing the drug or face the consequences. Still, in a show of Trumpian excess, Mexico is depicted as the root of all our problems. Bombing Sinaloa in 2024 is what building a border wall was in 2016: political theatrics.The United States is no novice when it comes to bombing Mexico. “A little more grape,” or ammunition, Gen. Zachary Taylor supposedly ordered as his men fired their cannons on Mexican troops. That was during America’s 1846-48 war on Mexico, which also included the assault on Veracruz, killing hundreds. Washington took more than half of Mexico’s territory during that conflict.Conservative politicians have used Mexico to gin up fears of an enemy to the south ever since the Mexican American War, which made Zachary Taylor a national hero. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs DivisionReactionaries have fixated on the border for over a century, since before the Civil War, when Mexico provided asylum for runaway slaves. Over the years, newspapers and politicians have regularly demanded that Mexico be punished for any number of sins, from failing to protect property rights to providing refuge for escaped slaves, Indian raiders, cattle rustlers, bootleggers, smugglers, drug fiends, political radicals, draft dodgers and Japanese and German agents. There was a touch of evil about Mexico, as Orson Welles titled his 1958 film set on the borderlands.Long before the Russian Revolution, hostility directed at the Mexican Revolution, which started in 1910, gave rise to a new, more militant, ideological conservatism. U.S. oilmen invested in Mexico blamed Jews for financing the revolution and raised money from U.S. Catholics to fund counterrevolutionaries, some of whom were fascists. From 1910 to 1920, private vigilante groups like the K.K.K., local police departments and the Texas Rangers conducted a reign of terror across the border states that killed several thousand ethnic Mexicans, some of whom were trying to organize a union or trying to vote.Trumpism’s ginned-up racism against Mexicans flows from this history. It remains to be seen whether calls to bomb Mexico’s fentanyl labs will play well in the coming election cycle. Yet the rhetoric itself is a dangerous escalation of an old idea: that international narcotics production, trafficking and consumption can be deterred through military means.Today’s Republican renegades say they represent a break from the “globalist” bipartisan consensus that governed the country through the Cold War and the decades that followed. But aside from some opposition to military aid to Ukraine, Republicans largely toe the line when it comes to the use of military force abroad. Few Republican dissidents dare question the establishment consensus on ongoing military aid to Israel, especially in light of its current siege of Gaza. In this sense, calls to bomb Mexico are a distraction, blowing smoke to hide the fact that the G.O.P. offers nothing new. Republicans certainly aren’t the peace party, as some of Mr. Trump’s isolationist backers would have us believe. All they offer is a shriller war party.(As if to illustrate the point, as Republicans shout about Mexico, the Biden administration has quietly struck a deal with Ecuador that will allow the United States to deploy troops to the country and patrol the waters off its coast, the Washington Examiner recently reported.)Even bombing another country in the name of fighting drugs is hardly innovative. In 1989, George H.W. Bush used the U.S. military to act on the federal indictment of Manuel Noriega, Panama’s ruler, for drug trafficking. In Operation Just Cause, the United States dropped hundreds of bombs on Panama City, including on one of its poorest neighborhoods, El Chorrillo, setting homes ablaze and killing an unknown number of its residents.Bombing another country in the name of fighting drugs is hardly innovative. As early as 1989, the United States was dropping hundreds of bombs on Panama, leaving burned cars and destroyed buildings in their wake.Steve Starr/Corbis, via Getty ImagesFor all their posturing on how they represent a break with the past, today’s bomb-happy Republicans are merely calling for an expansion of policies already in place. Republicans have introduced legislation in the House and Senate that would in effect bind the war on drugs to the war on terrorism and give the president authority to strike deep into Mexico. Mr. Graham also says he wants “a Plan Mexico more lethal than Plan Colombia.”Calls to inflict on Mexico something more lethal than Plan Colombia should chill the soul. Initiated by Bill Clinton in 1999, Plan Colombia and its successor strategies funneled roughly $12 billion into Colombia, mostly to security forces who were charged with eliminating cocaine production at its source. Their campaign included, yes, the aerial bombing of cocaine labs.Conflict in Colombia is a longstanding phenomenon, but Plan Colombia helped kick off a wave of terror that killed tens of thousands of civilians and drove millions from their homes. The Colombian military murdered thousands of civilians and falsely reported them as guerrillas, as a way of boosting its body count to keep the funds flowing. Massacre followed massacre, often committed by the Colombian military working in tandem with paramilitaries. At the end of last year, Colombia had the fourth-largest population that was internally displaced because of conflict and violence, behind only Syria, Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo.For what? More Colombian acreage was planted with coca in 2022 than in 1999, a year before the start of Plan Colombia. Colombia remains the world’s largest cocaine producer.Even after years of attempts to fumigate and destroy cocaine plantations in Colombia, the country remains the world’s largest cocaine producer. Olga Castano/Getty ImagesPlan Colombia did weaken Colombian drug producers and disrupt transportation routes. But it also incentivized Central American and Mexican gangs and cartels to get in the game. Drug-related violence that had largely been confined to the Andes blasted up through the Central American isthmus into Mexico.Then in 2006, with support from the Bush administration, Mexico’s new president, Felipe Calderón, did what today’s Republican would-be bombardiers want Mexico to do: declare war on the cartels. Again, the result was catastrophic. Estimates vary, but by the end of Mr. Calderón’s six-year term, about 60,000 Mexicans had been killed in drug-war-related violence. By 2011, an estimated 230,000 people had been displaced, and about half of them crossed the border into the United States. Tens of thousands of Mexicans, including social activists, were disappeared, or had gone missing. The cartels, meanwhile, grew more profitable and powerful.In the wake of this failure, the current Mexican government, led by Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has de-escalated the conflict to focus more on policing and prosecution. Other Latin American leaders, across the political spectrum, want to call off the war on drugs altogether and begin advancing decriminalization and treating excess drug use as a social problem.If the drug war is escalated, it would lead to more corruption, more deaths and more refugees desperate to cross into the United States. Jose Luis Gonzalez/ReutersFor now, calls to bomb Mexico are mostly primary-season bluster. But if a Republican were to win the White House in 2024, he or she would be under pressure to make good on the promise to launch military strikes on Mexico. Those efforts are not just bound to fail; they also could even make matters worse. Fentanyl labs are hardly complicated operations — with a couple of plastic drums and a pill press, one cook in a hazmat suit can turn out thousands of doses in a day. Trying to eliminate them with drones and missiles would be as effective as bombing bodegas in the Bronx. Hit one lab and five more pop up, perhaps in more populated areas.Further militarizing Mexico’s drug war would lead to more corruption, more deaths, more refugees desperate to cross the border. And those displaced, if Republicans had their way and Mexican cartels were classified as terrorist organizations, would have a better shot at claiming asylum, since they would be fleeing a formally designated war zone.With each escalation of the drug war, its horrors have inched closer to the United States. Now war mongering threatens to destroy the fragile movement among U.S. policymakers toward a more humane approach to drug use, that possession and use of drugs shouldn’t bring draconian prison sentences and that addiction should be treated as an illness, rooted in class inequality. Republican calls to go hard against narcotics below the border can’t but rebound above it, leading back to a callous public policy that treats addicts as enemies. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said of another war, the bombs we drop there explode here.Greg Grandin (@GregGrandin) is a professor of history at Yale and the author of seven books, most recently, “The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America,” which won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction.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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Primary Fight Brews Over Jamaal Bowman’s Stance on Israel

      by

      Representative Jamaal Bowman’s calls for Israel to stand down on Gaza may fuel a perilous primary challenge for one of the left’s brightest stars.Representative Jamaal Bowman was already facing blowback from Jewish leaders in his district and a growing primary threat for bucking his party’s stance on Israel.But on Friday, he did not show any hesitation as he grabbed the megaphone at a cease-fire rally back home in the New York City suburbs to demand what only a dozen other members of Congress have: that both Israel and Hamas lay down their arms.He condemned Hamas’s brutal murder of 1,400 Israelis. He condemned the governments of the United States and Israel for facilitating what he called the “erasure” of Palestinian lives. And with Palestinian flags waving, Mr. Bowman said, “I am ashamed, quite ashamed to be a member of Congress at times when Congress doesn’t value every single life.”Forget about retreating to safer political ground. In the weeks since Hamas’s assault, Mr. Bowman, an iconoclastic former middle-school principal with scant foreign policy experience, has repeatedly inserted himself into the center of a major fight fracturing his party’s left between uncompromising pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian factions.Mr. Bowman frames his actions as a moral imperative, but they are already courting political peril. Local Jewish leaders have denounced his approach as blaming both sides for the gravest attack against their people since the Holocaust. A potentially formidable primary challenger, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, has begun taking steps toward entering the race.Even some Jewish supporters publicly defending Mr. Bowman have grown wary. When a group of constituents who call themselves “Jews for Jamaal” held a private call with the congressman last week, they warned him he should be prepared to pay a political price if he does not support a multibillion-dollar military aid package for Israel now pending before Congress, according to three people on the call.Similar coalitions are lining up primary fights across the country against other members of Democrats’ left-wing “Squad” over their views on Israel, including Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Cori Bush of Missouri and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania.But perhaps no race promises to be so explosive, expensive or symbolically charged a test of the Democratic Party’s direction as a potential matchup between Mr. Bowman and Mr. Latimer.Mr. Bowman won his seat three years ago by defeating the staunchly pro-Israel chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot L. Engel, in a primary. And the district he represents is home both to one of the best-organized Jewish communities in the country and a nonwhite majority who sees him as a paragon of progressive Black leadership.The anger toward Mr. Bowman could scarcely have come at a worse time for him. Just last Thursday, he pleaded guilty to setting off a false fire alarm in a House office building as he raced to a vote last month. To avoid jail time, he agreed to pay a $1,000 fine and apologize.Mr. Bowman’s allies — including many Jewish ones — insist his position on the Israel-Hamas war will be vindicated. They argue that he is speaking for many of the district’s Black and Latino voters who identify with the plight of Palestinians, and that he is voicing the conflicting views of many American Jews.“He is not ‘anti-Israel,’ and to refer to him that way is to deliberately distort his record, which includes many votes in favor of military and economic aid to Israel,” 40 members of the Jews for Jamaal group wrote in a recent letter warning Mr. Latimer that a primary would be “needlessly wasteful and terribly divisive.”On the call with the group earlier this month, Mr. Bowman framed his position as a matter of personal conviction. He said he would never be Representative Ritchie Torres, a staunchly pro-Israel Democrat who represents a neighboring district. But he also said it was unfair to lump him together with lawmakers like Ms. Tlaib or Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who have taken far more antagonistic stances toward Israel.Unlike them, Mr. Bowman has voted in the past to help fund Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. In late 2021, he traveled to Israel on a trip organized by J Street, a mainstream liberal pro-Israel advocacy group that still backs him. Both actions drew sharp blowback from allies on the left and prompted Mr. Bowman to quit the Democratic Socialists of America.In a statement, Mr. Bowman said that he would “always stand with the Jewish community” but also would work to bridge differences among his constituents, the majority of whom remain more focused on issues like health care and gun safety.The district, which includes more than half of Westchester County, is about 50 percent Black and Latino, according to census data; studies suggest around 10 percent of residents are Jewish, though Jews probably make up two to three times that share of the Democratic primary electorate.“True security for everyone in the region begins with the de-escalation of violence, which means the immediate release of hostages taken by Hamas, a cease-fire, humanitarian aid to Israel and Gaza,” and avoiding military escalation, Mr. Bowman said.Since Hamas’s attack, though, some Jewish leaders in Westchester said Mr. Bowman has been too quick to move past the carnage overseas and growing fears about antisemitism closer to home. They took particular offense last week when he was one of just 10 House lawmakers to vote against a bipartisan resolution standing with Israel.The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby that has spent millions of dollars targeting Mr. Bowman’s left-leaning allies in recent cycles, has privately offered its support to Mr. Latimer. So have local business leaders who detest Mr. Bowman’s critiques of capitalism and his vote against President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill.And two dozen local rabbis have condemned his calls for a cease-fire as “a position of appeasement toward Hamas’s terror regime.”“Since being elected, Bowman has led the effort to erode support for Israel on Capitol Hill and within the Democratic Party,” they wrote in a recent letter urging Mr. Latimer to run.George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, has been encouraged by a pro-Israel group to challenge Mr. Bowman.Jonah Markowitz for The New York TimesIn an interview, Mr. Latimer, 69, said he would wait until mid November to announce his plans. But he described watching with growing alarm as protesters shaking college campuses cleave his party and, in his view, abandon Jewish Americans.“There are people in my county who are solid progressive Democrats,” said Mr. Latimer, who is Catholic. “But they also support the State of Israel, and they are frustrated that there is an element of the left that doesn’t see the historic oppression of the Jewish people in the same light as we’ve seen oppression of other groups.”Hours after Mr. Bowman spoke on Friday at the rally — organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, a Jewish anti-Zionist group — Mr. Latimer stood at the bimah of Kol Ami in White Plains to offer his unequivocal support to the Jewish congregation. He did not mention Mr. Bowman but drew subtle distinctions.“It was not some event that happened because of years of something else,” he said of Hamas’s attack. “It was the express hatred of Hamas toward Jewish people because they do not want Jewish people to live.”Mr. Bowman, for his part, has yet to visit a synagogue since the attack. His office indicated it is planning a series of meetings focused on strategies to combat hate.Mr. Latimer appears to have picked up at least one influential Democratic supporter even before entering the race.In an interview, Mr. Engel said he had resisted publicly criticizing Mr. Bowman since his defeat so as not to look bitter. But he said his successor had been an “embarrassment” who was “particularly awful” on Israel.“George is a class act; he works hard and he would really attempt to represent the people,” he said. “Whereas Bowman is more comfortable demonstrating, picketing and pulling fire alarms.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Says He Will ‘Reorient’ U.S. Foreign Policy to Counter China

      by

      While the G.O.P. field has largely moved away from the neoconservative policies of George W. Bush, Mr. DeSantis has taken heat for some of his isolationist tendencies, including on Ukraine.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, working to maintain his second-place status in the Republican primary, said Friday that as president he would “reorient” U.S. foreign policy to give clear priority to China while downplaying national security risks posed by conflicts such as Russia’s war on Ukraine.In a speech laying out his approach, Mr. DeSantis cast Beijing as a greater threat to the United States than the Axis powers and the Soviet Union ever were because of its economic might. As commander in chief, he said, he would “prioritize the Indo-Pacific region as the most pressing part of the world for defending U.S. interests and U.S. security.”A less aggressive approach, he argued, would allow China to export its “authoritarian vision all across the world,” creating a “global dystopia.”“They seek to be the dominant power in the entire world, and they are marshaling all their society to be able to achieve that objective,” Mr. DeSantis said. “So this is a formidable threat and it requires a whole of society approach.”Mr. DeSantis’s remarks, delivered in Washington, D.C., at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, come at a difficult moment for his presidential campaign. Not only is he badly trailing former President Donald J. Trump in the polls, but Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and former ambassador to the United Nations, has successfully positioned herself as a credible alternative to Mr. Trump, puncturing the Florida governor’s argument that the Republican presidential primary is a two-man race.Mr. DeSantis has lately used foreign policy to attack other Republican presidential candidates, rebuking Mr. Trump for his critical comments about Israeli leaders and accusing Ms. Haley — who is attracting growing interest from Republican donors and voters — of being soft on China.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Handling of Israel War Could Change How Voters See Him, Strategists Say

      by

      Plagued by low approval ratings, the president has projected himself as a world leader. Strategists warn, however, that his re-election may depend more on domestic issues like the economy.When President Biden addressed the nation from the Oval Office this week, he presented himself as a world leader during a moment of peril amid wars in Ukraine and Israel.The speech was only the second time that Mr. Biden has spoken in prime time from the Resolute Desk, and it came as he confronts a challenging re-election campaign weighed down by low approval ratings and lingering concern among Democrats about his fitness to seek a second term.Mr. Biden’s forceful proclamation of the nation’s leadership on the international stage since the Hamas attacks that killed more than 1,400 Israelis — he has given two major White House speeches and traveled to Tel Aviv to meet with local leaders and console grieving Israelis — has given Democrats hope that he can persuade skeptical voters to view him in a new light.But strategists from both parties said that even if Mr. Biden successfully steers his country through the latest international crisis, any political lift that he might enjoy could be short-lived. Perceptions of a bad economy have continued to drag down his re-election prospects, and domestic concerns historically supersede foreign policy in American presidential contests.President George H.W. Bush’s approval numbers jumped to roughly 90 percent in the spring of 1991 — more than twice what Mr. Biden registers now — after he led an international coalition in defeating Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.Mr. Bush’s aides thought his re-election the next year was all but certain. But he lost the White House to Bill Clinton 18 months later, defeated by voters’ concerns about the economy, the appeal of a more vigorous opponent and the most significant independent presidential candidate in a generation.“People were caught up in the good news and forgot that ‘it’s the economy, stupid,’” said Ron Kaufman, a longtime political aide to Mr. Bush, echoing a sign that was posted in the Clinton campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Ark., in 1992.American politics are also far more polarized now than they were 32 years ago, when Mr. Bush was at the peak of his popularity.President George H.W. Bush’s approval numbers jumped to roughly 90 percent in the spring of 1991 after the Persian Gulf war. He still lost re-election a year and a half later.Paul Hosefros/The New York TimesMr. Biden’s polling numbers have been mired in dangerous territory since he oversaw the chaotic American military withdrawal from Afghanistan. The enactment of popular legislation on infrastructure and renewable energy investments has done little to improve his popularity. A White House push to promote economic improvements under the banner of “Bidenomics” has done little to convince voters of its merits.“I don’t anticipate any long-term benefits politically,” Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of political history at Princeton University, said of Mr. Biden’s handling of the war in Israel. “We live in an era now where polarization is so deep that no matter what the magnitude of the crisis is, or the performance of the president, it’s not likely to make a difference.”Several voters interviewed on Friday were skeptical of Mr. Biden’s call to send $14 billion to help Israel — let alone another $60 billion for Ukraine.Samantha Moskowitz, 27, a psychology student at Georgia Gwinnett College in the Atlanta suburbs, said the prospect of sending billions to Israel and Ukraine “makes me anxious, especially where our economy is right now.”“I don’t love the idea that the money is being sent,” said Ms. Moskowitz, who did not vote for either Mr. Biden or Donald J. Trump in 2020 and said it was “too early to tell” if she would vote in 2024. “There is a need, but do we really need that significant amount?”She said she did not watch Mr. Biden’s Oval Office address on Thursday.About 20.3 million people watched Mr. Biden’s speech across 10 television networks, according to preliminary data from Nielsen. The total audience for the speech was certainly bigger, given that the Nielsen data does not capture some online viewing numbers.When Mr. Trump spoke about immigration from the Oval Office in January 2019, about 40 million people tuned in. Just over 27 million people watched Mr. Biden’s State of the Union speech in February.Stanley B. Greenberg, who was Mr. Clinton’s pollster in 1992, called Mr. Biden’s Oval Office address “a very important speech in terms of defining America’s security and bringing Iran and Russia to the forefront,” and predicted that it could help rally voters around the president and push Congress to pass his $106 billion international aid plan, which includes money for Ukraine and the Middle East.“Of course, a year from now, voters will be voting on the cost of living, the economy, the border, crime and other issues,” he said. “Foreign policy is rarely a voting determinant, but President Biden may be leading the attack on isolation and a new partisan choice on how we gain security.”The initial polling suggests that broad majorities of Americans endorse Mr. Biden’s staunch support for Israel. A Fox News poll found that 68 percent of voters sided with Israel, and 76 percent of voters in a Quinnipiac University poll said that supporting Israel was in the national interest of the United States.With the exception of 2004, when President George W. Bush confronted rising criticism about having led the nation into war against Iraq, no national election has been driven by foreign policy since the end of the Vietnam War.The nature of the presidential campaign could change if the conflict in Israel continues to dominate the news for weeks and months. Unlike the elder Mr. Bush after the 1991 Iraq war — which began and ended quickly with what at the time seemed a clear victory — Mr. Biden could be presenting himself as a wartime president through the course of his re-election bid, a prospect that also carries political risks.Mr. Biden’s support for sending military aid to Israel, even accompanied by gentle pleas to the country’s leaders for restraint, has alienated many on the left wing of his party, who point to a high Palestinian death toll in Gaza that is likely to rise as Israel presses its offensive.This week, thousands have marched on the Capitol amid a series of open letters — including one from a long roster of former presidential campaign staff members for Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — demanding that Democratic lawmakers urge Mr. Biden to push for a cease-fire in Israel, which he is unlikely to do.The president has picked sides in a conflict over which he has little control. Most immediately, Mr. Biden faces the challenge of what he can do to secure the release of Americans being held hostage in the Gaza Strip. Hamas released two American hostages on Friday afternoon, and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said that 10 more Americans had yet to be freed.Dr. Zelizer said, “I think the assumption should be that things will go south and there will be detrimental effects.” Referring to Mr. Biden and his administration, he added, “There’s assistance, but they don’t have real control over how this unfolds.”For all of those risks, these next few months may give Mr. Biden a window to shake up the contest in ways that could put him on firmer ground.“It gives him an opportunity to change and strengthen his image,” said Charles R. Black Jr., a strategist for the presidential campaigns of both Bushes and Ronald Reagan. “It gives him a chance to demonstrate his strength and also his knowledge.”Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said that this political moment could prompt voters to give Mr. Biden a second look. “The fear with an incumbent president is that voters write you off, they stop listening,” he said.“What’s the biggest thing about Biden?” Mr. Begala added. “Old. This gives him a chance to lean into it. I don’t think people are going to vote on how he does in Israel. But I think this can let them reframe the age problem. It is a way for people to look and say, maybe it’s good we have the old guy in there. He is steady and strong.”For Mr. Biden, an orderly handling of the crisis would be likely to buttress what is expected to be another dominant theme of his campaign if he finds himself running for a second time against Mr. Trump, with turmoil continuing among House Republicans as they seek to elect a speaker.“Hopefully the House chaos will calm down long before the election,” Mr. Black said. “But Trump is so ad hoc on foreign policy that it’s always chaos.”John Koblin More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Javier Milei y sus similitudes con Donald Trump

      by

      Se hizo famoso denigrando personas en la televisión. Lanza duros ataques contra sus críticos en línea. Porta un revoltoso corte de cabello que se ha convertido en meme. Y hoy es el líder de la extrema derecha de su país.Donald Trump, y su ascenso a la presidencia estadounidense en 2016, comparte algunas similitudes sorprendentes con el hombre detrás del momento que se desarrolla en la actualidad en Argentina, la nueva sensación política del país, Javier Milei.Milei, un economista libertario y comentarista televisivo, solía ser visto como un actor secundario en la contienda presidencial argentina, al que ni los medios de noticias ni sus rivales tomaban en serio. Pero actualmente, tras una campaña impetuosa y desde una postura de outsider basada en la promesa de que solo él puede solucionar los profundos problemas económicos del país, es el favorito para ganar los comicios este mismo domingo o pasar a una segunda vuelta el próximo mes.Milei, de 52 años, ya ha trastocado la política de su país de 46 millones de habitantes. Sus promesas de eliminar el banco central de Argentina y abandonar su moneda en favor del dolar estadounidense han dominado el debate nacional, y al mismo tiempo han ayudado a impulsar un mayor colapso en el valor del peso argentino.Sin embargo, ha sido su estilo político belicoso el que le ha ganado comparaciones con Trump, así como una preocupación generalizada en Argentina y la región sobre el daño que su gobierno podría infligir en la tercera economía más grande de América Latina.Milei ha atacado a la prensa y al papa; ha declarado que el cambio climático forma parte de la “agenda socialista”; calificó a China, el segundo socio comercial más importante de Argentina, de asesina; prometió la desregulación del mercado legal de armas; afirmó que es víctima de un fraude electoral; cuestionó las elecciones presidenciales más recientes en Estados Unidos y Brasil; y sugirió que los disturbios de extrema derecha que siguieron a esos procesos electorales habían sido complots de la izquierda.Milei rodeado de seguidores en Salta, Argentina. Su campaña impetuosa y desde una perspectiva de outsider lo ha convertido en uno de los favoritos para las elecciones del domingo.Sarah Pabst para The New York Times“Muy claramente es un mini Trump”, dijo Federico Finchelstein, un argentino que dirige el departamento de historia en la New School en Nueva York y estudia a la extrema derecha en todo el mundo.Milei, Trump y Jair Bolsonaro, expresidente de Brasil, son todos practicantes destacados de la corriente moderna de la política de extrema derecha, dijo Finchelstein, marcada por la vulgaridad, los ataques a las instituciones, el descrédito de los medios de comunicación, la desconfianza en la ciencia, el culto a la personalidad y el narcisismo.“Trump es un ícono de esta nueva forma de populismo extremo”, afirmó Finchelstein. “Y Milei quiere emularlo”.Milei ha aceptado con beneplácito las comparaciones con Trump, a quien ha llamado “uno de los mejores presidentes” en la historia de Estados Unidos. Ha utilizado gorras con el eslogan en inglés de “Make Argentina Great Again” (“Haz que Argentina sea grande de nuevo”) y, al igual que Trump, ha forjado su campaña en mayor parte en las redes sociales. Y en los dos meses previos a la votación del domingo, le concedió una entrevista a una personalidad televisiva estadounidense: el expresentador de Fox News, Tucker Carlson.El grupo de campaña de Milei rechazó repetidas solicitudes de entrevista con The New York Times.Partidarios de Milei en la sede de su partido en Salta. El uso de Milei de las redes sociales lo ha hecho especialmente popular entre los argentinos jóvenes.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesCon dos maestrías en economía, Milei puede llegar a sonar como profesor en ocasiones, cuando opina sobre la política monetaria y una corriente del libertarismo que sigue llamada anarcocapitalismo.Ha llamado al Estado “una organización criminal” que “vive de una fuente coactiva de ingresos llamada impuestos”. Además, afirma que lo impulsa una misión de reducir el gobierno y eliminarlo de las vidas de las personas, comenzando con el banco central argentino.Sus ideales libertarios también lo han hecho menos conservador en algunos temas sociales. Ha dicho que mientras el Estado no tenga que pagar por ello, podría apoyar la legalización de las drogas, la inmigración abierta, el trabajo sexual, los derechos de las personas trans, el matrimonio igualitario y la venta de órganos.Sin embargo, ha calificado al aborto de “asesinato” y ha prometido someterlo a referendo en Argentina, donde ha sido legal desde 2020.Milei sorprendió a las encuestadoras en agosto cuando ganó las elecciones primarias de Argentina, con cerca del 30 por ciento de los votos. Desde entonces ha liderado en las encuestas, superando a sus dos principales rivales: Sergio Massa, político de centroizquierda y ministro de Economía del país; y Patricia Bullrich, exministra de Seguridad de derecha.Milei ha recibido una cobertura periodística casi general durante la campaña, tanto por sus propuestas económicas radicales como por su personalidad excéntrica. Es un autoproclamado profesor de sexo tántrico con cinco perros mastines clonados. Su novia es una imitadora profesional de una de sus archirrivales políticos. Su directora de campaña y principal asesora política es su hermana.Un dólar con la imagen de Donald Trump en la oficina de uno de los asesores de Milei. El candidato ha elogiado la presidencia de Trump.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesAl igual que Trump, Milei habla sobre la importancia de la imagen, como cuando le dijo a Carlson que su pasado como portero de fútbol semiprofesional y cantante de una banda de versiones de The Rolling Stones conforman una “combinación atractiva en términos de producto televisivo”. Milei hace casi siempre la misma mirada con el ceño y los labios fruncidos en todas las selfies que se toma con los votantes, lo que también hace recordar a Trump.El estilo característico de Milei —una chaqueta de cuero, una melena indomable y patillas largas— está diseñado para evocar al personaje de los cómics Wolverine, según Lilia Lemoine, una artista de cosplay profesional quien también es la estilista de Milei y se está postulando para el Congreso en su fórmula. Esto, según Lemoine, es porque, al igual que Wolverine, “él es un antihéroe”.El resultado es una legión de seguidores que se asemeja a un culto. En un evento reciente en Salta, una ciudad en el noroeste montañoso de Argentina, Milei iba en la caja de una camioneta mientras miles de votantes se empujaban para verlo de cerca. Sus partidarios llevaban pelucas despeinadas, repartían billetes falsos de 100 dólares con su cara y exhibían arte de sus perros, cuatro de los cuales llevan nombres de economistas conservadores.“Sí, todos lo califican por loco, por todo, pero qué mejor que un loco para que saque adelante el país”, dijo María Luisa Mamani, de 57 años, dueña de una carnicería. “Porque los que estuvieron cuerdos no hicieron nada”.Los argentinos han sobrellevado una de las peores crisis financieras del país.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesMilei tuvo una aparición breve pero no habló. En realidad, el evento fue en gran medida un escenario para generar contenido para redes sociales creado por influentes en edad universitaria a los que no se les paga y que viajan con Milei y lo graban.Ellos lo han ayudado a construir una enorme presencia en línea así como una intensa base de simpatizantes jóvenes. (La edad legal para votar en Argentina es de 16 años).Luján López Villa, un estudiante de último año de bachillerato de 20 años, proveniente de a pequeña localidad de Chicoana, dijo que Milei tenía un apoyo casi unánime entre sus compañeros de clase, porque era el candidato “cool”, a pesar de las advertencias de sus profesores de que sus planes para dolarizar la economía eran peligrosos.“Nos quieren cambiar el pensamiento para no votarlo”, dijo. “Igual lo seguimos”.No sorprende que los argentinos estén ansiosos por un cambio. Décadas de mala gestión económica, gran parte de ella en manos del movimiento peronista en el poder, del que Massa es parte, han sumido a la Argentina en un agujero financiero.En abril de 2020, al inicio de la pandemia, con un dólar se compraban unos 80 pesos; un día de la semana pasada, ese mismo dólar podía comprar más de 1000 pesos. Esas cifras están basadas en un tipo de cambio no oficial que refleja mejor la visión del mercado sobre el peso, parte de un sistema bizantino de controles cambiarios que el gobierno utiliza para tratar de mantener los dólares estadounidenses en el país.Seguidores de Milei en Salta. Quiere reducir el gobierno, empezando por eliminar el banco central de Argentina.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesMilei quiere eliminar esas regulaciones cuando sea presidente, en parte haciendo una transición al dólar.Tanto Milei como varios economistas han dicho que dolarizar la economía muy probablemente requiera de decenas de miles de millones de dólares, pero no se sabe con certeza dónde podría Argentina obtener una inversión de esa escala. El país ya tiene problemas para pagar una deuda de 44.000 millones de dólares al Fondo Monetario Internacional.Milei tampoco tendría mucho apoyo en el Congreso para la dolarización, aunque ha afirmado que tiene pensado someter el tema a un referendo nacional.Emmanuel Alvarez Agis, exviceministro de Economía de Argentina durante un gobierno de izquierda, afirmó que si Milei lograra la dolarización, resolvería en gran medida la inflación, pero produciría una serie de otros problemas, incluida la disminución de los salarios reales, una mayor tasa de desempleo y menor flexibilidad para suavizar los efectos de las crisis económicas.Milei también ha expresado su compromiso con implementar cambios a favor del mercado y con una presencia menor del gobierno, y ha prometido: reducir los impuestos; eliminar regulaciones; privatizar las industrias estatales; cambiar la educación pública a un sistema basado en vouchers y la atención de salud pública a un sistema basado en seguros; reducir el número de ministerios federales de 18 a ocho; y recortar el gasto federal en un 15 por ciento del producto interno bruto de Argentina.Estos profundos recortes del gasto requerirían reducciones significativas en las pensiones, la educación y la seguridad pública, dijo Alvarez Agis. “No creo que estén discutiendo los números de manera seria”, dijo.Carteles de campaña en Salta para otro de los candidatos principales en la elección del domingo, Sergio Massa, el ministro de Economía de centroizquierda.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesTras meses de campañas de los candidatos, este domingo será la prueba que determinará si los votantes están dispuestos a darle una oportunidad a Milei. Podría ganar las elecciones de forma directa con el 45 por ciento de los votos, o con el 40 por ciento si tiene un margen de diferencia de al menos 10 puntos porcentuales. Si ningún candidato obtiene algunas de esas condiciones, la contienda irá a una segunda vuelta el 19 de noviembre, entre los dos candidatos con más votos.Aunque ganó las elecciones primarias, Milei siguió afirmando que hubo fraude electoral y que sus rivales se robaron boletas de su partido de los establecimientos de votación, evitando que los ciudadanos votaran por él. Milei también afirmó que se encontraron boletas de su partido escondidas en una escuela. Su partido no proporcionó ninguna prueba.Milei dijo que su partido había puesto la denuncia ante las autoridades electorales, pero los funcionarios electorales la cuestionaron.“No hubo denuncia ni impugnación, ni que ocurriera robo de boletas de modo sistemático”, declaró la Cámara Nacional Electoral de Argentina a través de un comunicado. “Nos preocupa que se hagan declaraciones así sin acompañarlas con presentaciones judiciales para investigar”.El equipo de campaña de Milei dijo que había reclutado a 100.000 voluntarios para monitorear las mesas el día de las elecciones. Pero en una entrevista televisiva el jueves, Milei afirmó que todavía le preocupaba el robo de votos.Milei afirmó que el presunto fraude en las primarias le había costado al menos varios puntos porcentuales de apoyo. “Hay unos que dicen que son dos puntos y medio, otros dicen que son tres. Y otros que dicen cinco”, dijo. “Sea al número que sea, puede ser determinante”.Natalie Alcoba More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Javier Milei, a ‘Mini-Trump,’ Could Be Argentina’s Next President

      by

      He made his name disparaging people on television. He levels harsh attacks against critics online. He sports an unruly hairdo that has become a meme. And he is now the leader of his country’s far right.Donald J. Trump, and his rise to the American presidency in 2016, shares some striking similarities with the man behind the moment unfolding in Argentina, the nation’s new political sensation, Javier Milei.Mr. Milei, a libertarian economist and television pundit, was once seen as a sideshow in Argentina’s presidential race, not taken seriously by the news media or his opponents. Now — after a brash, outsider campaign based on a promise that he alone can fix the nation’s deep economic woes — he is the favorite to win the election outright on Sunday or head to a runoff next month.Mr. Milei, 52, has already upended the politics of this nation of 46 million. His pledges to eliminate Argentina’s central bank and ditch its currency for the U.S. dollar have dominated the national conversation, while also helping to fuel a further collapse in the value of the Argentine peso.But it has been his bellicose political style that has attracted comparisons with Mr. Trump, as well as widespread concern in Argentina and beyond about the damage his government could inflict on Latin America’s third-largest economy.Mr. Milei has attacked the press and the pope; declared climate change part of “the socialist agenda”; called China, Argentina’s second-largest trade partner, an “assassin”; pledged looser controls on guns; claimed he is the victim of voter fraud; questioned the most recent presidential elections in the United States and Brazil; and suggested that the far-right riots that followed those votes were leftist plots.Mr. Milei surrounded by supporters in Salta, Argentina. His brash, outsider campaign has made him a favorite in Sunday’s election. Sarah Pabst for The New York Times“He is quite clearly a mini-Trump,” said Federico Finchelstein, an Argentine who chairs the history department at the New School in New York and studies the far right around the world.Mr. Milei, Mr. Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s former president, are all leading practitioners of the modern strain of far-right politics, Mr. Finchelstein said, marked by vulgarity, attacks on institutions, discrediting of the news media, distrust of science, a cult of personality and narcissism.“Trump is an icon of this new form of extreme populism,” Mr. Finchelstein said. “And Milei wants to emulate him.”Mr. Milei has embraced comparisons to Mr. Trump, whom he has called “one of the best presidents in the history of the United States.” He has worn “Make Argentina Great Again” hats and, much like Mr. Trump, waged his campaign largely on social media. And in the two months before Sunday’s vote, he granted an interview to one American broadcast personality: the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.Mr. Milei’s campaign declined repeated requests for an interview with The New York Times.Supporters of Mr. Milei in the headquarters of his party in Salta. Mr. Milei’s use of social media has made him especially popular among younger Argentines.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesWith two master’s degrees in economics, Mr. Milei can sound professorial at times, opining on monetary policy and a strain of libertarianism he follows called anarcho-capitalism.He has called the state “a criminal organization” that collects taxes “at gunpoint.” And he says he is driven by a mission to shrink government and remove it from people’s lives, starting with Argentina’s central bank.His libertarian ideals have also made him less conservative on some social issues. He has said that as long as the state doesn’t have to pay for it, he could support drug legalization, open immigration, sex work, transgender rights, same-sex marriage and selling organs.Abortion, however, he calls “murder” and promises to put it to a referendum in Argentina, where it has been legal since 2020.Mr. Milei surprised pollsters in August when he won Argentina’s open primaries with about 30 percent of the vote. He has since led his two main challengers in the polls: Sergio Massa, Argentina’s center-left economy minister; and Patricia Bullrich, a right-wing former security minister.Mr. Milei has received nearly blanket news coverage during the campaign, both for his radical economic proposals and his eccentric personality. He is a self-proclaimed tantric-sex teacher with five cloned mastiff dogs. His girlfriend is a professional impersonator of one of his political archrivals. And his campaign manager and chief political adviser is his sister.A dollar note with Donald J. Trump’s image in the office of one of Mr. Milei’s advisers. The candidate has praised Mr. Trump’s tenure as president in the United States. Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesLike Mr. Trump, he speaks about the importance of image, telling Mr. Carlson that his past as a semipro soccer goalie and a singer in a Rolling Stones cover band “make for an attractive television product.” Mr. Milei makes nearly the same furrowed-brow, pursed-lip look for every selfie with voters, also calling to mind Mr. Trump.Mr. Milei’s signature look — a leather jacket, an untamable mop of hair and long sideburns — is designed to conjure the comic-book character Wolverine, according to Lilia Lemoine, a professional cosplay performer who is Mr. Milei’s stylist and is running for Congress on his ticket. Because, like Wolverine, she said, “he is an antihero.”The result is a cultlike following. At a recent event in Salta, a city in Argentina’s mountainous northwest, Mr. Milei rode in a truck bed as thousands of voters pushed in for a closer look. Supporters wore messy wigs, passed out fake $100 bills with his face and displayed art of his dogs, four of which are named for conservative economists.“Yes, everyone describes him as crazy, for everything, but who better than a crazy person to move the country forward?” said María Luisa Mamani, 57, a butcher-shop owner. “Because the sane ones didn’t do anything.”Argentines have weathered one of the country’s worst financial crises.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesMr. Milei appeared briefly but did not speak. Instead, the event was largely a stage for social-media content created by unpaid college-age influencers who travel with Mr. Milei and film him.They have helped him build an enormous online presence and intense youth following. (The legal voting age in Argentina is 16.) Luján López Villa, 20, a high school senior in the small town of Chicoana, said Mr. Milei had near-unanimous support among her classmates, largely because he was the “cool” candidate, despite warnings from teachers that his plans to dollarize the economy are dangerous.“They want to change our minds,” she said. “We’re going to keep following him.”It is no surprise that Argentines are eager for change. Decades of economic mismanagement, much of it in the hands of Mr. Massa’s incumbent Peronist party, have plunged Argentina into a big financial hole.In April 2020, at the start of the pandemic, $1 bought about 80 pesos; one day last week, $1 bought more than 1,000 pesos. Those figures are under an unofficial exchange rate that best reflects the market’s view of the peso, part of a byzantine system of currency controls the government uses to try to keep U.S. dollars in the country.Supporters of Mr. Milei in Salta. He wants to shrink government, starting with getting rid of Argentina’s central bank.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesMr. Milei wants to discard those rules as president, partly by switching to dollars.Both Mr. Milei and economists have said that dollarizing the economy will most likely require tens of billions of dollars, but it is not clear where Argentina could get such an investment. The country is struggling to pay a $44 billion debt to the International Monetary Fund. Mr. Milei would also not have much congressional support for dollarization, though he has said that he would put the issue to a national referendum.Emmanuel Alvarez Agis, Argentina’s former deputy economy minister under a leftist administration, said that if Mr. Milei could dollarize, it would mostly solve inflation — but produce a host of other problems, including a decrease in real wages, higher unemployment and less flexibility to soften the effects of economic downturns.Mr. Milei has also promised a pro-market, small-government overhaul, including pledges to: lower taxes; slash regulations; privatize state industries; shift public education to a voucher-based system and public health care to insurance based; reduce the number of federal ministries to eight from 18; and cut federal spending by 15 percent of Argentina’s gross domestic product.Such deep spending cuts would require significant reductions to pensions, education and public safety, Mr. Alvarez Agis said. “I don’t think that they are discussing numbers in a serious way,” he said.Campaign signs in Salta for another top candidate in Sunday’s election, Sergio Massa, Argentina’s center-left economy minister.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesAfter months of campaigning by the candidates, Sunday will test whether voters are ready to take a chance on Mr. Milei. He could win the election outright with 45 percent of the vote, or 40 percent with a margin of at least 10 percentage points. If no candidate reaches any of those thresholds, the race will go to a runoff on Nov. 19 between the top two finishers.Even though Mr. Milei won the primary, he still claimed fraud, saying rivals stole his parties’ ballots from polling stations, preventing citizens from voting for him. Mr. Milei also said his party’s ballots were found in the trash at a school. His party did not provide any evidence.Mr. Milei said his party had complained to election officials, but election officials disputed that.“There was no complaint or challenge, nor was there any systematic ballot theft,” Argentina’s electoral court said in a statement. “We are concerned that such statements are made without accompanying legal filings to investigate.”Mr. Milei’s campaign said it had recruited 100,000 volunteers to monitor polling stations on Election Day. But in a television interview on Thursday, Mr. Milei said he was still worried about stolen votes.He claimed that the alleged fraud in the primaries had cost him at least several percentage points of support. “Some say two and a half points, others say three, and others say five,” he said. “Whatever the number is, it may be decisive.”Natalie Alcoba More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Aid, and Pointed Advice, to Israel

      by

      More from our inbox:How to Unify, and Save, the CountrySadly, CBC Ends a Time-Honored TraditionOver-the-Counter MedicinesPresident Biden was greeted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his arrival in Israel on Wednesday.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Backs Israel, as Cause of Blast Remains Disputed” and “Biden Urges Caution in War on Hamas” (front page, Oct. 19):President Biden offers good advice that one hopes will be heard by all: Do not let shock, pain and rage lead to counterproductive decisions, decisions that cause unnecessary loss of innocent life and squander the world’s sympathy.Palestinians and Israelis have each been failed by their leaders. Palestinians and Israelis have each suffered unspeakable harm.We pray that Palestinians and Israelis and their respective leaders and all of the people who empathize with them will remember that in the midst of righteous anger, ill-conceived actions can make matters much, much worse for everyone.Ron BoyerEugene, Ore.To the Editor:As an American Jew, I am horrified by President Biden’s response to Hamas’s horrific murder of Israelis on Oct. 7. By providing military aid to Israel, the U.S. government is fueling the Israeli government’s vastly disproportionate response, in which it has already killed more Palestinian civilians than Israeli civilians were killed by Hamas.Mr. Biden may have urged the Israeli people not to be consumed by the rage they feel about the Hamas terror attacks, but that statement is completely contradicted by his sending the very weapons that the Israeli military is using to kill civilians.The U.S. can stop this immoral violence, but instead is fanning the flames by providing support for the autocratic Israeli government. I am joined by many other American Jews in condemning the Israeli government’s killing of thousands and threatening millions of innocent lives in the name of the Jewish people.Miriam ShakowNarberth, Pa.To the Editor:In this time of unbelievable misery and loss, it may be naïve to talk about international law. But some of the participants in the current fighting in Israel (and their allies) have represented that they are trying to respect the laws of war. Since many observers may not be familiar with those laws, I write simply to report two indisputable principles.First, the same rules of conduct apply to the “aggressor” and to its victims. “They started it” is no excuse for doing things that would otherwise be illegal.Second, the fact that the overall objective is permissible (like self-defense) or even laudatory does not excuse using methods that result in disproportionate harm to civilians.Applying these principles, it is a violation of the laws of war to knowingly cut off food, water, fuel and medical supplies to entire trapped localities. The harm would fall disproportionately on civilians who have even less access to whatever supplies exist than those in authority. It cannot be justified.Lea BrilmayerBranford, Conn.The writer is an emeritus professor of international law at Yale University.To the Editor:As an American Israeli living in Israel with a son in the Israel Defense Forces, I feel that I must speak out.It was uplifting for Israelis to hear President Biden’s remarks after the attacks on Oct. 7. Israelis everywhere felt encouraged by the president’s unequivocal support, and the unambiguous message that the events of Oct. 7 constituted “pure, unadulterated evil” — because they truly did.It is clear to Israelis that in carrying out these atrocities, Hamas was seeking to draw Israel into precisely the actions that Israel is now engaged in. The justification for those actions could be debated endlessly, but the world must know that Israel considers itself in existential peril. And in our hour of trial, we derive incredible strength from American support.The objective of Israel’s war with Hamas is not the suffering of Gazans or Palestinians but the crippling of a murderous terrorist organization that has caused unprecedented suffering for Israelis and Palestinians alike.David GilmoreHolon, IsraelHow to Unify, and Save, the Country Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:These are unprecedented times. Democracy, national security and the world order are at stake. Our nation has never been so divided.While our young experiment in democracy faces a challenge to its very existence, our world faces heightened conflict from dangerous leaders who present existential threats, and our planet faces increased temperature extremes, violent destructive storms and devastating wildfires.Considering all that is at stake, our nation must find its way to tamp down the noise from the extreme sides of both parties, the disinformation promulgated by partisan media and the contempt for others fueled by social media.I propose a unique approach to ensure the continued success of our republic. As much as I respect and admire Vice President Kamala Harris, I would ask that for the greater good of our nation and the world, she step aside as President Biden selects a moderate Republican (such as Larry Hogan, the former Maryland governor) as his 2024 running mate.Not only would this virtually guarantee his re-election, but it would also be a giant step in uniting the country.Bradley S. FeuerWellington, Fla.Sadly, CBC Ends a Time-Honored TraditionThe “long dash,” as the CBC’s daily announcement of the official time was known to generations of Canadians, was broadcast for the final time on Oct. 9.Geoff Robins/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “After 84 Years, Time Abruptly Runs Out on Canadian Radio Tradition” (news article, Oct. 18):CBC’s dropping of its 84-year tradition of announcing the precise time at 1 p.m. day in and day out may seem like a trivial matter in the current world environment. But find me a Canadian who cannot finish the sentence “The beginning of the long dash …” (for the non-Canadian readers: “indicates exactly 1 o’clock Eastern Standard Time”).It’s as common as eight months of winter and hockey, and always saying “I’m sorry.”It was enough of a collective jolt when the middle of the announcement (“following 10 seconds of silence”) was abandoned. We grew up counting down that 10 seconds of radio silence while at the ready to instantly adjust our watches if necessary. And now we are completely on our own.Go easy on us, world, if the lone Canadian invited to the party is now always early or late. We’re sorry.Mary E. CampbellOttawaOver-the-Counter Medicines Jackson GibbsTo the Editor:Re “We’ve Known for 20 Years This Cold Medicine Doesn’t Work,” by Randy C. Hatton and Leslie Hendeles (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 1):Nonprescription, over-the-counter (O.T.C.) medicines are a cornerstone of our nation’s health care system, yet your essay draws sweeping conclusions and disregards decades of regulatory oversight, scientific review, and real-world evidence supporting their safety and efficacy.Phenylephrine, the only O.T.C. oral decongestant available without purchase restrictions, has decades of use as a safe and effective option for temporary nasal congestion relief. The Food and Drug Administration has twice determined phenylephrine to be “generally recognized as safe and effective,” the regulatory standard for O.T.C. medicines.However, the authors’ assessment discounts this history, and other evidence, while elevating their own limited research. No medicine works equally for everyone, and every medicine has unique considerations for therapeutic selection. Providing Americans with options that offer freedom of choice for personal health care needs is a core attribute of our health care system.Consumers can have confidence in their O.T.C. medicines, and the regulatory framework that oversees them.Scott MelvilleWashingtonThe writer is president and C.E.O. of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Use Israel Attack to Stoke Fears About U.S.-Mexico Border

      by

      G.O.P. lawmakers and candidates regularly invoke record-high border crossings to address a range of issues, including crime and jobs.Crime in American cities. The national opioid crisis. Election integrity. And now a terror attack considered the deadliest day for Jews in Israel’s 75-year history.Not long after Hamas terrorists killed and kidnapped hundreds of Israelis this month, a wave of Republicans — on the presidential campaign trail, in state and congressional races and in the far-right corners of conservative media — reached for a familiar playbook: tying the issue to the nation’s southern border.“What happened to Israel could happen to America because our country has been invaded by millions of people from over 160 different countries,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said on Fox News more than 24 hours after the attack.“We know that there’s an open border, and I know that the biggest national security threat is if those terrorists come into America, and we have another 9/11,” Nikki Haley, a former United Nations ambassador under former President Donald J. Trump, told reporters last week in Concord, N.H.“You cannot forget that the same people that attacked Israel are right now pouring at levels that nobody can believe into our beautiful U.S.A. through our totally open border,” Mr. Trump said on Monday, a baseless claim that was met with applause at a campaign event in Clive, Iowa, a Des Moines suburb.While Republicans are otherwise reckoning with deep divisions, the remarkable unity on this front underscores the degree to which the 2,000-mile dividing line between the United States and Mexico remains a potent political symbol for the party. Since Mr. Trump paved his way to power on a nativist and hard-line approach to immigration, Republicans have invoked fortifying the border to address nearly every issue, in increasingly militant terms and often exaggerating the facts.There are some indications that message is resonating. A national NBC News poll taken in September suggests that voters overwhelming trust Republicans over Democrats when it comes to handling the economy and crime — as well as immigration — heading into the 2024 election.Alex Conant, a Republican strategist and a former adviser to Senator Marco Rubio, said the aggressive turns toward the border could be particularly effective now as the Biden administration grapples with two very real humanitarian crises: record numbers of migrants trying to cross the border and a fight against fentanyl that has become an urgent public health problem.“The border is something that concerns a majority of Americans, especially when you can tie it to problems they see in their own neighborhoods,” he said.After Donald J. Trump won the presidency on a hard-line approach to immigration, Republicans have tied border policies to countless other issues.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesHomeland Security officials have said they have found no specific or credible threat to the United States tied to Hamas. Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, responded to Republicans in part by saying there is “strict national security vetting to determine whether individuals coming from anywhere in the world have ties to terrorist organizations.” Immigration experts said that the government cannot screen people who enter undetected but that the large numbers of migrants turning themselves in at the border are subjected to screening processes.Since the southern border was drawn, American politicians have sought to wring political advantage by tapping into xenophobic fears, at times aimed at Chinese laborers, or young German men believed to be spies, or Jews and Catholics, historians and political analysts said.Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a government professor at George Mason University in Virginia and who tracked the rise of the Mexican criminal organization Los Zetas, said the latest Republican rhetoric took cues from three distinct moments in U.S. history: the migration of Mexican laborers who became the economic engine of the Southwest, the government’s war on drugs that began in the 1970s, and the 9/11 terror attack and the so-called war on terror. All resulted in an increased military presence at the border, the building of physical barriers and an expansion of the U.S. deportation system.Ms. Correa-Cabrera said that, much like now, those earliest border enforcement measures were mostly based on political arguments, not data that migrants increased crime or posed a greater threat to public safety. Many studies have shown this is not the case. “It had to do with prejudice,” she said.Attempts by politicians to link Mideast terror groups and Mexican criminal organizations have at times gained traction over the past two decades, but no substantial evidence has surfaced to support the claim, counterterrorism and insurgency experts said. The two kinds of groups have vastly different objectives and operate in cultural and economic borderland regions that do not share remotely similar dynamics.With apprehensions at the southern border up overall, U.S. officials this year have recorded an increase in apprehensions of people whose identities match those on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list — 160 migrants in the 2023 fiscal year as of July, up from 100 the fiscal year before, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Such rolls constitute a small fraction of the millions of people seeking to cross the southern border and do not significantly measure the terror threat against the United States, terrorism and insurgency experts said. The uptick may be owing in part to the broad nature of the lists, they added, ensnaring people wanted for terrorist activities against their home countries but not aimed at the United States, as well as relatives or associates not accused of wrongdoing. Although experts do not completely rule out the threat of a terror attack launched from the southern border, they described it as unlikely.If Mideast terror organizations ever did plan an attack, “the northern border may even be more vulnerable,” said Bruce Hoffman, professor and director of the Center for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University who specializes in terrorism studies. And such a plot would not necessarily be connected to illegal immigration, he added.The 9/11 hijackers entered the United States on tourist, business and student visas. The last man to physically cross the border with materials for an explosive — Ahmed Ressam — was arrested in 1999 after he came in from Canada.Still, the southern border remains a powerful symbol, for politicians and voters. When Mr. Trump adopted his “America First” slogan during his 2016 presidential campaign, he used it to harness grievance, xenophobia and fears about threats from abroad, economic competition from China on trade, and the potential economic and social consequences of increases in new immigrants.On Monday, Mr. Trump, under fire for his criticism of Israel and for calling Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization, “very smart,” invoked the deadly Hamas attacks on the Jewish state to stoke fears of terrorism at home. Returning to some of his most inflammatory themes on illegal immigration, he also took aim at legal pathways by pledging to reinstitute the travel ban from Muslim-majority countries and expand the freeze on refugees he enacted during his presidency.“We aren’t bringing anyone from Gaza,” he said at his rally in Clive.Mr. Trump is not alone. Republican candidates like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida often steer conversations with voters back to immigration. At a town hall in Iowa in August, when he was asked two questions in quick succession on unrelated issues, Mr. DeSantis managed to hit on the border. On the issue of eminent domain, he said he would support it “for the border wall down south.” Asked about the war in Ukraine, he said that as president, his “first obligation” would be “to protect the American people and to protect our border.”In mailers, television ads and remarks, Republicans in state and congressional races regularly fault border enforcement. They cast blame on Mexican criminal organizations and undocumented immigrants for the fentanyl crisis — but not the American pharmaceutical companies that fueled the legal market for the drugs or the U.S. citizens who law enforcement officials say typically bring the harder narcotics across the border. They have claimed without basis that unauthorized immigrants are gaining access to the ballot box, while claims that widespread numbers of undocumented immigrants are voting have been consistently discredited.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene quickly invoked the U.S.-Mexico border after the attack in Israel.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesHistorians and political analysts warned that much of the heated language on immigration plays into far right and sometimes explicitly racist tropes that fuel fear with the potential for violence.Two white supremacist shooting suspects in the last five years, Robert Bowers in Pittsburgh and Patrick Crusius in El Paso, Texas, cited “invaders” and a “Hispanic invasion” in the lead-up to their crimes.On Saturday, the authorities in suburban Chicago said, Joseph Czuba, 71, fatally stabbed a 6-year-old boy and seriously wounded the child’s mother because of their Palestinian background. Officials tied the attack to what Mr. Czuba was hearing on conservative talk radio about the fighting overseas.Nicholas Nehamas More