United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      More Members of Congress Are Retiring, Many Citing Dysfunction

      by

      More than three dozen incumbents have announced they will not seek re-election next year. Some are running for other offices, while others intend to leave Congress altogether.Eleven are running for the Senate. Five for state or local office. One for president of the United States. Another is resigning to become a university president. And more and more say they are hanging up their hats in public office altogether.More than three dozen members of Congress have announced they will not seek re-election next year, some to pursue other offices and many others simply to get out of Washington. Twelve have announced their plans just this month.The wave of lawmakers across chambers and parties announcing they intend to leave Congress comes at a time of breathtaking dysfunction on Capitol Hill, primarily instigated by House Republicans. The House G.O.P. majority spent the past few months deposing its leader, waging a weekslong internal war to select a new speaker and struggling to keep federal funding flowing. Right-wing members have rejected any spending legislation that could become law and railed against their new leader for turning to Democrats, as his predecessor did, to avert a government shutdown.The chaos has Republicans increasingly worried that they could lose their slim House majority next year, a concern that typically prompts a rash of retirements from the party in control. But it is not only G.O.P. lawmakers who are opting to leave; Democrats, too, are rushing for the exits, with retirements across parties this year outpacing those of the past three election cycles.And while most of the departures announced so far do not involve competitive seats, given the slim margins of control in both chambers, the handful that provide pickup opportunities for Republicans or Democrats could help determine who controls Congress come 2025.“I like the work, but the politics just no longer made it worth it,” Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said in an interview. He announced his retirement last month after more than a quarter-century in the House.“I think I can have more impact on a number of things I care about if I’m not going to be bogged down for re-election,” Mr. Blumenauer said.Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, is retiring after more than 25 years in the House. “I like the work, but the politics just no longer made it worth it,” he said.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesAs lawmakers consider their futures in Congress, they are weighing the personal sacrifice required to be away from loved ones for much of the year against the potential to legislate and advance their political and policy agendas. In this chaotic and bitter environment, many are deciding the trade-off is unappealing.This session, said Representative Dan Kildee, Democrat of Michigan, has been the “most unsatisfying period in my time in Congress because of the absolute chaos and the lack of any serious commitment to effective governance.”Mr. Kildee, who has served in Congress for a decade, said he decided not to seek re-election after recovering from a cancerous tumor he had removed earlier this year. It made him re-evaluate the time he was willing to spend in Washington, away from his family in Michigan.The dysfunction in the House majority only made the calculation easier.“That has contributed to the sense of frustration,” he said, “and this feeling that the sacrifice we’re all making in order to be in Washington, to be witness to this chaos, is pretty difficult to make.”Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, also announced she would end her three-decade career in Congress at the close of her current term. One of her closest friends in Congress, Representative Zoe Lofgren, another California Democrat, told her hometown news site, San Jose Spotlight, that there was speculation that Ms. Eshoo was leaving “because the majority we have now is nuts — and they are.” But Ms. Lofgren added that “that’s not the reason; she felt it was her time to do this.”Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, also announced she would end a three-decade career in Congress.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesSome House Republicans have reached the limits of their frustration with their own party.Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, announced he would not seek re-election after his dissatisfaction and sense of disconnect with the G.O.P. had grown too great. Mr. Buck, who voted to oust Representative Kevin McCarthy from the speakership, has denounced his party’s election denialism and many members’ refusal to condemn the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.“We lost our way,” Mr. Buck told The New York Times this month. “We have an identity crisis in the Republican Party. If we can’t address the election denier issue and we continue down that path, we won’t have credibility with the American people that we are going to solve problems.”Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, said in a statement during the speaker fight last month that she would not run again.“Right now, Washington, D.C., is broken; it is hard to get anything done,” she said.The trend extends even to the most influential members of Congress; Representative Kay Granger, the 80-year-old Texas Republican who chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee, announced she would retire at the end of her 14th term. Even if her party manages to keep control of the House, Ms. Granger, the longest-serving G.O.P. congresswoman, faced term limits that would have forced her from the helm of the spending panel.Few of the retirements thus far appear likely to alter the balance of power in Congress, where the vast majority of House seats are gerrymandered to be safe for one party or the other. Prime exceptions include Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, whose retirement will almost certainly mean that Republicans can claim the state’s Senate seat and get a leg up to win control of that chamber.The decision of Representative Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, to leave her seat in a competitive Virginia district to seek the governorship also gives Republicans a prime pickup opportunity.Representative Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat leaving her Virginia seat to seek the governorship, gives Republicans a prime pickup opportunity. But most retiring lawmakers are in safe seats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesAnd Representative George Santos, Republican of New York, announced he would not seek re-election after a House Ethics Committee report found “substantial evidence” that he had violated federal law. His exit will give Democrats a chance to reclaim the suburban Long Island seat he flipped to the G.O.P. last year.Many others are likely to be succeeded by members of their own party.Representative Dean Phillips, Democrat of Minnesota, who last month announced a long-shot bid to challenge President Biden for his party’s nomination, said this week that he would step aside to focus on that race. Mr. Biden won his district by 21 percentage points in 2020, according to data compiled by Daily Kos, making it all but certain that Democrats will hold the seat.Representative Bill Johnson, Republican of Ohio, said he would accept a job as president of Youngstown State University. His seat, too, is all but sure to be held by the G.O.P.; former President Donald J. Trump won the district by more than 28 percentage points in 2020.Some members not seeking re-election have determined they can affect more change from outside Congress, where they do not have to contend with the same infighting, gridlock and attention-seeking that now frequently drive the place.“I think I will have as much or more impact as a civilian as I would as a member of Congress, especially having to be involved in a pretty toxic political environment,” Mr. Blumenauer said.Lawmakers typically do not choose to leave office when their party looks poised to regain power in the next election cycle, and Democrats see an opening to regain the House majority next year. But Mr. Blumenauer, who would be a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee should his party win the House, said he would rather not sacrifice time with his family.“It’s tempting,” said Mr. Blumenauer. “I’m going to continue working on the things I care about, but with a renewed commitment to family, friends and fun.”Robert Jimison More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Johnson’s Rise to Speaker Cements Far-Right Takeover of GOP

      by

      After their party was decimated in the 2008 elections, mainstream Republican leaders believed they could harness rising far-right populist forces. Instead, they were overrun by them.The roots of the Republican crackup this fall that paralyzed the House, fueled the unexpected rise of Speaker Mike Johnson and now threatens to force a government shutdown crisis early next year lie in a fateful choice the party made more than a decade ago that has come back to haunt its leaders.In early 2009, congressional Republicans were staring down a long exile in the political wilderness. Barack Obama was about to assume the presidency, and Democrats were within reach of a filibuster-proof, 60-vote supermajority in the Senate and the largest House majority in more than 20 years after the economic crisis of 2008.But Republicans saw a glimmer of hope in the energized far-right populist movement that emerged out of a backlash to Mr. Obama — the first Black president — and his party’s aggressive economic and social agenda, which included a federal health care plan. Republicans seized on the Tea Party and associated groups, with their nativist leanings and vehemently anti-establishment impulses, as their ticket back to power.“We benefited from the anger that was generated against the one-way legislation of the Obama years,” said Eric Cantor, the former House leader from Virginia who became the No. 2 Republican after the 2010 midterm elections catapulted the party back into the majority. “It was my way or the highway.”Mr. Cantor and his fairly conventional leadership team of anti-tax, pro-business Republicans set out to harness that rage to achieve their party’s longstanding aims. But instead, the movement consumed them.Within four years, Mr. Cantor was knocked out in a shocking primary upset by a Tea Party-backed candidate who had campaigned as an anti-immigration hard-liner bent on toppling the political establishment. It was a sign of what was to come for more mainstream Republicans.“We decided the anger was going to be about fiscal discipline and transforming Medicare into a defined contribution program,” Mr. Cantor said recently. “But it turned out it was really just anger — anger toward Washington — and it wasn’t so policy-based.”The forces that toppled Mr. Cantor — and three successive Republican speakers — reached their inexorable conclusion last month with the election of Mr. Johnson as speaker, cementing a far-right takeover that began in those first months after Mr. Obama took office.Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia and House majority leader, was defeated in a 2015 primary by David Brat, a member of the Tea Party.Gabriella Demczuk/The New York TimesMr. Johnson, who identifies as an archconservative, is the natural heir to the political tumult that began with the Tea Party before evolving into Trumpism. It is now embodied in its purest form by the Freedom Caucus, the uncompromising group of conservatives who have tied up the House with their demands for steep spending cuts. And the situation won’t get any easier when Congress returns from its Thanksgiving respite to confront its unsettled spending issues and what to do about assistance to Israel and Ukraine.The ranks of more traditional Republicans have been significantly thinned after the far right turned on them in successive election cycles. They have been driven out of Congress in frustration or knocked out in primaries, which have become the decisive contests in the nation’s heavily gerrymandered House districts.“They thought they could control it,” Michael Podhorzer, the former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. who has studied the House’s far-right progression, said of G.O.P. leaders. “But once you agree essentially that Democrats are satanic, there is no room in the party for someone who says we need to compromise with Democrats to accomplish what we need to get done.”The result, Mr. Podhorzer said, is a Republican majority that his research shows across various data points to be more extreme, more evangelical Christian and less experienced in governing than in the past. Those characteristics have been evident as House Republicans have spent much of the year in chaos.“It isn’t that they are really clever at how they crash the institution,” Mr. Podhorzer said. “They just don’t know how to drive.”From the start, members who were more rooted in the traditional G.O.P., which had managed to win back the House majority in 1994 after 40 years, struggled to mesh with the Tea Party movement, which was driven to upend the status quo. Many top Republicans had voted for the bank bailout of 2008, a disqualifying capital crime in the eyes of the far-right activists.Leading congressional Republicans were leery of the Tea Party’s thinly veiled racism, illustrated by insulting references to Mr. Obama and the questioning of his birthplace, though they said they saw the activists as mainly motivated by an anti-tax, anti-government fervor.Traditional Republicans appeared at Tea Party rallies where they were barely tolerated, while the far-right Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Steve King of Iowa, then outliers in the party, were the stars. They tried to mollify activists with tough talk on taxes and beating back the Obama agenda, but saw mixed results.The Republican National Committee also sought to align itself with the Tea Party, encouraging angry voters to send virtual tea bags to Congress in a 2009 Tax Day protest. Tea Party activists rebuked the national party, saying it hadn’t earned the right to the tea bag message.But the Tea Party paid huge electoral benefits to the House G.O.P. in 2010, as it swept out Democrats and swept in scores of relatively unknown far-right conservatives, some of whom would scorn their own leaders as much as the Democrats. The steady march to the modern House Republican Conference had begun.“It truly was bottom up,” said Doug Heye, a Republican strategist who was then the spokesman for the R.N.C. “Then how do you have control over that? When you have that big a win, you are going to have people who just aren’t on your radar screen, but if they were, you would have tried to prevent them from winning their primary.”In the Senate, the Tea Party was having a different effect. Far-right conservatives such as Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware managed to prevail in their primaries, only to lose in the general election. That cost Senate Republicans a chance to win a majority in that chamber. The extreme right has had less influence in the Senate than the House ever since.Speaker John A. Boehner resigned in 2015 amid opposition from hard-line conservatives.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe ramifications of the far-right bargain for congressional Republicans quickly became clear. Mr. Cantor was defeated in 2014, and Speaker John A. Boehner, dogged by hard-line conservatives he branded “knuckleheads,” resigned in 2015. In 2018, Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Mr. Boehner’s successor and the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012, had his fill of clashes with President Donald J. Trump — who aligned himself with the Tea Party in its early days — and chose not to run for re-election.Then Representative Kevin McCarthy — the last of a trio called the “Young Guns,” with Mr. Cantor and Mr. Ryan, that once seemed to be the future of the party — fell from the speakership in October. That ended the reign of House Republican speakers who had tried unsuccessfully to weaponize the ultraconservatives in their ranks while holding them at arm’s length.Mr. McCarthy’s ouster cleared the way for Mr. Johnson, who was chosen only after House Republicans rejected more established leaders, Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Tom Emmer of Minnesota, who would have easily ascended in the previous era.Despite his unquestioned conservative bona fides, Mr. Johnson is already encountering difficulties in managing the most extreme element within his ranks.Last week, Freedom Caucus members blocked a spending measure in protest of Mr. Johnson’s decision to team with Democrats to push through a stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown.The move underscored the far-right’s antipathy to compromise and the dominance it now enjoys in the House, and raised the prospect that Mr. Johnson could face another rebellion if he strays again. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Debates Over Words Amid War: ‘Antisemitism,’ ‘Anti-Zionism,’ ‘Apartheid’

      by

      More from our inbox:Expanding Advanced Placement Classes: Harmful or More Equitable?Election LessonsAmericans’ Love of Outlaws Stefani Reynolds/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Question of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism,” by Charles M. Blow (column, Nov. 16):The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, adopted by dozens of countries around the world, indeed does define anti-Zionism as antisemitism. It cites as an example of antisemitism: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”That the Jewish people deserve the right of self-determination, after the Holocaust and the persecution throughout Arab lands for centuries, was resolved in 1948. To debate Zionism is precisely the problem facing the Jews today and most especially Israelis who live in an absurd world in which the nature of their birthright is called into question, as every single Israeli is born of Zionism.How ironic that in this day and age in the United States, where every minority is protected and words matter more than ever, it is somehow acceptable to define oneself as anti-Zionist, even if Jewish. It is offensive, absurd and deeply antisemitic.As an American Israeli, I cannot stress enough how toxic this concept is to Israelis and how it does nothing to help the cause of peace today.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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Could Nikki Haley Really Beat Trump? Big Donors Are Daring to Dream.

      by

      Powerful players in the business world have gravitated toward Nikki Haley, aware that she remains an underdog but beginning to believe she has a chance.Late last month, Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, got an unexpected call from Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Dimon said he was impressed by Ms. Haley’s knowledge of policy details and her open-minded approach to complex issues raised in the Republican presidential race, according to a person familiar with what they discussed. Keep it up, he told her.He wasn’t the only business heavyweight to say so.In recent weeks, a group of chief executives, hedge fund investors and corporate deal makers from both parties have begun gravitating toward Ms. Haley and, in some cases, digging deeper into their pockets to help her.Her ascent in the polls and strong debate performances have raised hopes among Republicans hungering to end the dominance of former President Donald J. Trump that maybe, just maybe, they have found a candidate who can do so.“I’m a long way from making my mind up — something could change — but I’m very impressed with her,” said Kenneth G. Langone, the billionaire Home Depot co-founder, who has donated to Ms. Haley’s campaign and is considering giving more. “I think she’s a viable candidate. I would certainly like her over Trump.”Kenneth G. Langone, a co-founder of Home Depot, is part of a bipartisan group of chief executives, hedge-fund investors and corporate deal makers who have shown new interest in Ms. Haley. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesMs. Haley’s fresh appeal to the moneyed crowd is coming at a critical juncture in the race, when positive buzz and steady cash flow are vital to a candidate’s survival. With less than eight weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Ms. Haley’s campaign and allied political committees need money to pay for travel, advertising, staff and a ground game to draw out potential voters.Some business leaders say they appreciate her focus on cutting taxes and government spending. Others praise her foreign-policy chops and her search for a winning Republican message on abortion rights, on which she has sought a moderate path but recently tacked to the right by saying she would have signed a six-week ban as governor of South Carolina.Most say they see her as a welcome alternative to Mr. Trump, whom they blame for inciting the violence of Jan. 6, 2021, for costing Republicans a Senate majority in last year’s midterm elections and for being too volatile as a commander in chief. They also prefer her to President Biden, whose economic policies and age many cited as a concern.“It’s invigorating to be truly excited by a candidate again,” said Jonathan Bush, the chief executive of a health-data startup and a cousin of former President George W. Bush. He hosted a virtual fund-raiser for Ms. Haley in early November.Mr. Bush, a Republican who voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 and for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, in 2016, said he had been struck by her knowledge and poise.“The topic that everyone is on is, ‘How do you beat Donald Trump?’” Mr. Bush said, “and she was careful to say, ‘Look, people will decide about him, but this is where I am on certain issues.’ And she rattled off some issues, related to our debt, related to our role in the world. But what you picked up was an electric energy,” he added, “that I think got this crowd really excited.”But even with Ms. Haley’s momentum, halting Mr. Trump’s seemingly inexorable march to the Republican nomination promises to be a slog. With a wide edge in national and early-state polls, the former president is running effectively as an incumbent, with legions of supporters prepared to vote solely for him.Several donors and advisers described two groups taking shape among the major, top-dollar donors:First, those who have yielded to the likelihood that Mr. Trump, however they may feel about him, will probably be the nominee, and have decided to stop funding potential alternatives. Second, those who believe that with enough financial resources and a savvy field operation, Ms. Haley could unseat him.Despite the long odds, her financial supporters say they see a path to victory.“There were people that don’t like Trump at all but were very skeptical that he could be stopped,” said Eric Levine, a Republican fund-raiser who leads the bankruptcy and litigation practices at Eiseman Levine Lehrhaupt & Kakoyiannis. “They now believe he can be stopped,” he said, pointing to Ms. Haley’s steady climb in the polls.Mr. Levine, who initially backed Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, is co-hosting a Haley fund-raiser on Dec. 4. “His aura of invincibility is just peeled away completely,” he said.A spokeswoman for Ms. Haley’s campaign declined to comment.Polls show that Ms. Haley has gained traction against Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has held the No. 2 spot in national surveys all year. In Iowa, she has pulled nearly even with Mr. DeSantis, even as he has pursued an all-in strategy for that state. In New Hampshire, where she is in second place, she has been nearing 20 percent in polling averages.Her campaign said she pulled in $1 million in the first 24 hours after the last debate on Nov. 9, where she distinguished herself for her hawkish positions on Ukraine and Gaza and for her scathing dismissal of Vivek Ramaswamy, a rival she called “scum.”And while fund-raising numbers for the fourth quarter have not yet been released, interviews with about 20 financial and corporate executives suggest that more big checks will soon arrive.Ms. Haley’s $11.6 million war chest has already been bolstered by campaign contributions from wealthy Wall Street executives, including the fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller and the private-equity investor Barry Sternlicht.“I’m supporting Nikki because I think the nation needs to move on from the divisiveness and fear-mongering of the far left and right,” Mr. Sternlicht said. “I’m also opting in for a fresh face, a younger person who more accurately reflects the nation.”Timothy Draper, a venture capitalist in California, was an early backer, pouring $1.25 million into a super PAC supporting her. In recent weeks, he said, he has fielded interest from Democrats and Republicans and, notably, many women. “I think she can unify the country,” he said.Ms. Haley has mingled with Gary D. Cohn, the onetime Goldman Sachs president who served as Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser at the same time Ms. Haley was U.N. ambassador, and the investment banker Aryeh Bourkoff, who co-hosted a fund-raiser for her in Manhattan on Nov. 14.Her team is discussing policy with representatives for Kenneth C. Griffin, the billionaire hedge fund founder, on topics running the gamut from increasing students’ access to high-quality education to how to ensure a strong national defense, according to a person briefed on their discussions.Mr. Griffin recently told Bloomberg News that he was “actively contemplating” backing her, but he has not made up his mind, this person said.Students at Emmaus Bible College in Dubuque, Iowa, listening to Ms. Haley speak at a campaign event this month. She has risen in polls in Iowa, where Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has invested heavily. Ms. Haley’s backers, as well as some Republican observers, believe that if she can inch closer to Mr. DeSantis in Iowa or even outmaneuver him for second place, she could enter the New Hampshire primary election the next week with real momentum.If she could then reel in support from the state’s independent voters, some of them add, she could have a chance of beating Mr. Trump there.“There’s a possibility in the coming months to win New Hampshire,” said Mr. Bush, who is planning to form a political action committee to promote Ms. Haley to independent voters in the Granite State, not far from where he lives in Maine.Mr. Bush also plans to repeat his virtual fund-raiser to introduce her to new donors without asking her to spend unnecessary time working a cocktail party. (He said that he invited his Bush cousins to the November event, but that none of them attended.)An upset in New Hampshire could also move the needle during the Feb. 24 primary in Ms. Haley’s home state, South Carolina, where she was governor before serving in the Trump administration. She is polling second there, trailing the former president badly.The leanness of Ms. Haley’s campaign has become an asset. In the third quarter, her campaign spent $3.5 million, about 43 cents of every dollar it took in, a far lower rate than candidates like Mr. DeSantis as well as Mr. Scott, who dropped out this month.Some Wall Street executives, many of whom are focused on government spending and debt, note approvingly that Ms. Haley largely flies commercial.For some deep-pocketed donors, the openness to Ms. Haley stems from desperation.“I would take anyone not over 76 or crazy,” said Michael Novogratz, the chief executive of the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital, a past Biden supporter who is now exploring both Ms. Haley and Representative Dean Phillips, the Minnesota Democrat who is mounting a last-ditch bid for his party’s nomination. Mr. Novogratz said that Mr. Trump was too divisive and that Mr. Biden was too old.Ms. Haley is someone he might support, he said, as is former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.“Unfortunately,” he added as a caveat, “I don’t see either beating Trump.” More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Candidate in Michigan Says He Was Offered $20 Million to Challenge Tlaib

      by

      Rashida Tlaib, a member of the progressive “squad” in the House, has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the Palestinian cause, particularly after Israel’s invasion of Gaza.A Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan said he was offered $20 million by a Michigan businessman to drop out of the race and instead take on a primary challenge against Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian American representative who was censured this month for her statements about the Israel-Gaza war.Linden Nelson, a Michigan businessman and past donor to Democratic and some Republican candidates, made the campaign funding offer to the Senate candidate, Hill Harper, last month, according to Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesman for Mr. Harper’s campaign. Mr. Nelson also donated $13,000 to Concerned Citizens of Michigan, a group that supported a primary challenge against Ms. Tlaib in 2020.Mr. Ganapathy added that the conversation between Mr. Harper and Mr. Nelson was “respectful on both sides.” Calls to Mr. Nelson’s phone number on Wednesday were not answered. Ms. Tlaib declined to comment on the record.“I’m not going to run against the only Palestinian-American in Congress just because some special interests don’t like her,” Mr. Harper said in a statement on X, formerly known as Twitter. He also criticized “the Israel lobby” and “a broken political and campaign finance system that’s tilted towards the wealthy and powerful.”The funding offer would have in effect eliminated a progressive candidate from the crowded Democratic primary for an open Senate seat in Michigan and pitted him against Ms. Tlaib, a member of the progressive “squad” in the House. She has drawn criticism after breaking with Democrats who support Israel’s invasion of Gaza following a deadly terrorist attack carried out by Hamas.The offer also reflects a growing effort to target Democratic candidates who have either been critical of Israel or sympathetic to Palestinian causes. A Democratic pro-Israel group began running television ads this month that criticize Ms. Tlaib for her positions on the war in Gaza — such as calling for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict. Other primary challenges are brewing against progressive representatives like Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Jamaal Bowman of New York.Mr. Harper, an author and actor known for his roles on “CSI: NY” and “The Good Doctor,” said on X that he was approached by “one of AIPAC’s biggest donors,” referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, soon after Politico published an article first reporting Mr. Nelson’s offer. He said he declined the offer, adding, “I won’t be bossed, bullied, or bought.”Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for AIPAC, said the group “was absolutely not involved in any way in this matter,” adding that “our records indicate that this individual has not contributed to AIPAC in over a decade.”AIPAC, among other pro-Israel groups, spent tens of millions of dollars supporting candidates in Democratic primaries in the 2022 midterms. Progressive organizations are concerned that these groups will sway primaries against progressive Democratic elected officials next year.Usamah Andrabi, the communications director for Justice Democrats, a progressive group that helped elect many of the targeted House members, criticized Mr. Nelson’s reported offer, saying “if that’s not showing that our democracy and our elections are for sale to the highest millionaire donor, then I’m not sure what is.”Alain Delaquérière More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Vivek Ramaswamy Struggles to Win Over Iowans, Even With Free Meals

      by

      The political newcomer’s surge over the summer has fizzled. But Vivek Ramaswamy is still spending freely to keep up a breakneck pace in Iowa and New Hampshire.While many people were heading home for the Thanksgiving holiday, the presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy was making a new, if temporary, one in Iowa.He has rented an apartment in Des Moines, the state’s capitol, and plans to participate in the city’s annual Turkey Trot, a Thanksgiving morning run. In the five days before the holiday, Mr. Ramaswamy, 38, hosted over two dozen events, many offering free breakfast, lunch or dinner, eager to answer voter questions.At recent stops, Mr. Ramaswamy, a political newcomer and millionaire entrepreneur, has made a bold proclamation about his 2024 bid: “If I win Iowa, I’m your next president.”But his odds on either front appear to be growing more remote. He’s campaigning and spending like there’s no tomorrow, buying meals and filling Pizza Ranches with crowds willing to hear him out — but not necessarily winning them over. Stagnation has set in after a fleeting summer spike in popularity, with national polls consistently showing him bogged in the middling single digits. Aggressive debate tactics appear to have hurt him, with his disapproval numbers ticking up after each performance, though he started with little name recognition.In Iowa, he doesn’t fare much better. A recent Des Moines Register survey shows former President Donald J. Trump maintaining a dominant lead and Nikki Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations, battling Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida for second place.And yet Mr. Ramaswamy, who has campaigned in the image of Mr. Trump, says he will hold over 200 events in Iowa between now and the caucuses on Jan. 15 after abandoning his Ohio headquarters and moving staff to Iowa and New Hampshire, as Politico reported this month. He suggests the polls don’t accurately reflect his support.“If what we are seeing in our events translates into the broader caucus-going population, we’re going to have an outstanding result here in Iowa,” he told reporters on Tuesday after speaking to a packed crowd at a Cedar Rapids restaurant.“People really dial in and start talking about this as the caucus date approaches, and so our bet is that’s going to be a bottom-up lift that we get. I truly think we’re going to end up delivering a surprise,” he added.The intensity of his schedule — several states a week, with up to six events each day, not counting frequent media appearances — is coming at what he says is great personal expense. His campaign has picked up the tab for dozens of meals at recent events. At stops attended by a New York Times reporter, representatives for the host restaurants declined to give specifics on the cost. One restaurant in Toledo, Iowa, reached by phone, put the cost at $1,000.Mr. Ramaswamy estimated to reporters Tuesday that he had spent around $20 million on his run so far. As of the end of September, his campaign had spent more than $22 million, and he had contributed more than $17 million, according to the latest filings with the Federal Election Commission.Interviews with voters who heard him speak suggested that while many were intrigued by Mr. Ramaswamy’s proposals, and liked what they heard, they weren’t quite sold with two months to go before the caucuses. Many likened him to Mr. Trump — describing him as “sharper,” “more polite” or having “less baggage.”“He’s another Trump, only a little bit younger,” said Diane Lyphout, a voter from Vinton, Iowa, who is also considering Mr. DeSantis. “He’s going to do really well. The only thing I thought he was maybe just a little bit young yet to have that seasoning and wisdom.”But aspects of Mr. Ramaswamy’s strategy — including his steadfast bolstering of Mr. Trump, who is accused of committing dozens of felonies in four criminal indictments — have baffled some voters and veterans of the Iowa caucuses.His campaign has reserved about $1 million in television ads in Iowa for November — nearly double what his campaign and a super PAC backing him spent in October, according to data from AdImpact, a media-tracking firm. But as of Tuesday evening, neither his campaign nor the super PAC had made buys for subsequent months. Mr. Trump, Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis, between their campaigns and super PACs backing them, have reserved millions more in Iowa TV ads through January.The hectic travel schedule has often caused delays and, at times, canceled events — alienating potential supporters.“If he can’t show up on time, he can’t be president,” said one man at a diner in Vinton, Iowa, who left before Mr. Ramaswamy, who was 30 minutes late, arrived. At that same event, a woman walked out midway through his stump speech, saying, “Hogwash,” to a campaign staff member on her way out.He has retooled his stump speech to make central his discontent with the Republican National Committee, which he has claimed doesn’t want him in the race, and has recently been prompting crowds to ask him about his foreign policy vision, an area in which his inexperience has been highlighted by Ms. Haley and other rivals. He has used those questions to highlight his closeness to Mr. Trump, while his criticism of the “R.N.C. establishment” offers echoes of Mr. Trump’s own criticisms of the party apparatus.That message resonated with Kristine Pfab, a 57-year-old from Bernard, Iowa, who said Republicans had become “just as swampy” as Democrats. But asked who she would caucus for, she said, “Probably DeSantis.” “But if I could roll Vivek and DeSantis into one person, that would be great,” she added.Jimmy Centers, a Republican strategist in Iowa, said Mr. Ramaswamy’s decision to run as a “Trump lite” candidate, in addition to the backlash for invoking Ms. Haley’s daughter recently on the debate stage, were two factors that could hurt Mr. Ramaswamy. Voters, seeing little daylight between Mr. Trump and Mr. Ramaswamy, frequently ask why he would run against the man he proclaims was the “best president of the 21st century.”“Iowans kick the tires on just about every candidate up until the very last second. Vivek enjoyed a really nice moment in late summer, early fall, and that’s not to say he can’t get it back,” Mr. Centers said. “But for right now, I think it’s really down to two races: How much will Trump win by, and will DeSantis or Haley come in second?”Mr. Ramaswamy tells voters and reporters alike that his path to victory lies in “bringing people along” — meaning potential voters who have not traditionally supported Republicans or skip elections altogether, especially younger voices.The audiences at many of his events, however, are often older and whiter. In Grinnell, Iowa, home to Grinnell College, five students at a town hall on Monday said they were Democrats who came for the spectacle of meeting a presidential candidate for the first time.Seeing Mr. Ramaswamy, they all said, had solidified their support for President Biden.“I feel like a lot of his policies are just kind of identical to a lot of Trump’s policies — he seems just kind of Trump-lite, even with how he speaks,” said Che Glenn, a 19-year-old student from New York. “I just want to know why he thinks anyone would ever consider voting for him over Trump.”Even those whom Mr. Ramaswamy has won over have expressed doubts about his ability to succeed in the Hawkeye State.“I feel that the Republican Party has gone off the rails, and he’s got the message that the party needs to return to,” said Chris Kardos, a 71-year-old from Center Point, Iowa, who plans to caucus for Mr. Ramaswamy. “Unfortunately, I face the reality that his chances of winning the nomination are not great.” More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump Represents a ‘Trifecta of Danger’

      by

      Brian Klaas, a political scientist at University College London, captures the remarkable nature of the 2024 presidential election in an Oct. 1 essay, “The Case for Amplifying Trump’s Insanity.”Klaas argues that the presidential contest now pitsA 77-year-old racist, misogynist bigot who has been found liable for rape, who incited a deadly, violent insurrection aimed at overturning a democratic election, who has committed mass fraud for personal enrichment, who is facing 91 separate counts of felony criminal charges against him, and who has overtly discussed his authoritarian strategies for governing if he returns to poweragainst “an 80-year-old with mainstream Democratic Party views who sometimes misspeaks or trips.”“One of those two candidates,” Klaas notes, “faces relentless newspaper columns and TV pundit ‘takes’ arguing that he should drop out of the race. (Spoiler alert: it’s somehow *not* the racist authoritarian sexual abuse fraudster facing 91 felony charges).”Klaas asks:What is going on? How is it possible that the leading candidate to become president of the United States can float the prospect of executing a general and the media response is … crickets?How is it possible that it’s not front page news when a man who soon may return to power calls for law enforcement to kill people for minor crimes? And why do so few people question Trump’s mental acuity rather than Biden’s, when Trump proposes delusional, unhinged plans for forest management and warns his supporters that Biden is going to lead us into World War II (which would require a time machine), or wrongly claims that he defeated Barack Obama in 2016?The media, Klaas argues, has adopted a policy in covering Trump of: “Don’t amplify him! You’re just spreading his message.”In Klaas’s view, newspapers and television have succumbed to what he calls the “banality of crazy,” ignoring “even the most dangerous policy proposals by an authoritarian who is on the cusp of once again becoming the most powerful man in the world — precisely because it happens, like clockwork, almost every day.”This approach, according to Klaas,has backfired. It’s bad for democracy. The “Don’t Amplify Him” argument is disastrous. We need to amplify Trump’s vile rhetoric more, because it will turn persuadable voters off to his cruel message.Looking over the eight-and-a-half years during which Trump has been directly engaged in presidential politics, it’s not as if there were no warning signs.Three months after Trump took office, in April 2017, a conference called “A Duty to Warn” was held at the Yale School of Medicine.The conference resulted in a best-selling book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.” A sampling of the chapter titles gives the flavor:“Our Witness to Malignant Normality,” by Robert Jay Lifton.“Unbridled and Extreme Hedonism: How the Leader of the Free World Has Proven Time and Again That He Is Unfit for Duty,” by Philip Zimbardo and Rosemary Sword.“Pathological Narcissism and Politics: a Lethal Combination,” by Craig Malkin.In a review of that book, “Twilight of American Sanity: a Psychiatrist Analyzes the Age of Trump” and “Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire, a 500-Year History,” Carlos Lozada, now a Times Opinion columnist, wrote in The Washington Post that the political elite in Washington was increasingly concerned about Trump’s mindset:“I think he’s crazy,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) confided to his colleague Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in a July exchange inadvertently caught on a microphone. “I’m worried,” she replied …. Even some Republicans have grown more blunt, with Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) recently suggesting that Trump “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence” to succeed as president.The warnings that Donald Trump is dangerous and unstable began well before his 2016 election and have become increasingly urgent.These warnings came during the 2016 primary and general campaigns, continued throughout Trump’s four years in the White House, and remain relentless as he gets older and more delusional about the outcome of the 2020 election.I asked some of those who first warned about the dangers Trump poses what their views are now.Leonard L. Glass, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, emailed me:He acts like he’s impervious, “a very stable genius,” but we know he is rageful, grandiose, vengeful, impulsive, devoid of empathy, boastful, inciting of violence, and thin-skinned. At times it seems as if he cannot control himself or his hateful speech. We need to wonder if these are the precursors of a major deterioration in his character defenses.Glass continued:If Trump — in adopting language that he cannot help knowing replicates that of Hitler (especially the references to opponents as “vermin” and “poisoning the blood of our country”), we have to wonder if he has crossed into “new terrain.” That terrain, driven by grandiosity and dread of exposure (e.g., at the trials) could signal the emergence of an even less constrained, more overtly vicious and remorseless Trump who, should he regain the presidency, would, indeed act like the authoritarians he praises. Absent conscientious aides who could contain him (as they barely did last time), this could lead to the literal shedding of American blood on American soil by a man who believes he is “the only one” and the one, some believe, is a purifying agent of God and in whom they see no evil nor do they doubt.In recent months, Trump has continued to add to the portrait Glass paints of him.In March, he told loyalists in Waco, Texas:I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.“With you at my side,” Trump went on to say,we will totally obliterate the deep state, we will banish the warmongers from our government, we will drive out the globalists, and we will cast out the communists and Marxists, we will throw off the corrupt political class, we will beat the Democrats, we will rout the fake news media, we will stand up to the RINOs, and we will defeat Joe Biden and every single Democrat.At the California Republican Convention on Sept. 29, Trump told the gathering that under his administration shoplifters will be subject to extrajudicial execution: “We will immediately stop all the pillaging and theft. Very simply, if you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store.”Trump has continued to forge ahead, pledging to a crowd of supporters in Claremont N.H. on Nov. 11: “We will root out the communists, Marxist fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible, they’ll do anything whether legally or illegally to destroy America and to destroy the American dream.”Nothing captures Trump’s megalomania and narcissism more vividly than his openly declared agenda, should he win back the White House next year.On Nov. 6, Isaac Arnsdorf, Josh Dawsey and Devlin Barrett reported in The Washington Post that Trump “wants the Justice Department to investigate onetime officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, as well as his ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley.”Trump, the Post noted, dismissed federal criminal indictments as “third-world-country stuff, ‘arrest your opponent,’ ” and then claimed that the indictments gave him license, if re-elected, to do the same thing: “I can do that, too.”A week later, my Times colleagues Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage and Jonathan Swan, quoted Trump in “How Trump and His Allies Plan to Wield Power in 2025”: “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” adding, “I will totally obliterate the deep state.”In an earlier story, Haberman, Savage and Swan reported that Trump allies are preparing to reissue an executive order known as Schedule F, which Trump promulgated at the end of his presidency, but that never went into effect.Schedule F, the reporters wrote,would have empowered his administration to strip job protections from many career federal employees — who are supposed to be hired based on merit and cannot be arbitrarily fired. While the order said agencies should not hire or fire Schedule F employees based on political affiliation, it effectively would have made these employees more like political appointees who can be fired at will.Schedule F would politicize posts in the senior civil service authorized to oversee the implementation of policy, replacing job security with the empowerment of the administration to hire and fire as it chose, a topic I wrote about in an earlier column.I asked Joshua D. Miller, a professor of psychology at the University of Georgia, whether he thought Trump’s “vermin” comment represented a tipping point, an escalation in his willingness to attack opponents. Miller replied by email: “My bet is we’re seeing the same basic traits, but their manifestation has been ratcheted up by the stress of his legal problems and also by some sense of invulnerability in that he has yet to face any dire consequences for his previous behavior.”Miller wrote that he haslong thought that Trump’s narcissism was actually distracting us from his psychopathic traits. I view the two as largely the same but with psychopathy bringing problems with disinhibition (impulsivity; failure to delay gratification, irresponsibility, etc.) to the table and Trump seems rather high on those traits along with those related to narcissism (e.g., entitlement, exploitativeness), pathological lying, grandiosity, etc.).I asked Donald R. Lynam, a professor of psychology at Purdue, the same question, and he emailed his reply: “The escalation is quite consistent with grandiose narcissism. Trump is reacting more and more angrily to what he perceives as his unfair treatment and failure to be admired, appreciated and adored in the way that he believes is his due.”Grandiose narcissists, Lynam continued, “feel they are special and that normal rules don’t apply to them. They require attention and admiration,” adding “this behavior is also consistent with psychopathy which is pretty much grandiose narcissism plus poor impulse control.”Most of the specialists I contacted see Trump’s recent behavior and public comments as part of an evolving process.“Trump is an aging malignant narcissist,” Aaron L. Pincus, a professor of psychology at Penn State, wrote in an email. “As he ages, he appears to be losing impulse control and is slipping cognitively. So we are seeing a more unfiltered version of his pathology. Quite dangerous.”In addition, Pincus continued, “Trump seems increasingly paranoid, which can also be a reflection of his aging brain and mental decline.”The result? “Greater hostility and less ability to reflect on the implications and consequences of his behavior.”Edwin B. Fisher, a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, made the case in an email that Trump’s insistence on the validity of his own distorted claims has created a vicious circle, pressuring him to limit his close relations to those willing to confirm his beliefs:His isolation is much of his own making. The enormous pressures he puts on others for confirmation and unquestioning loyalty and his harsh, often vicious responses to perceived disloyalty lead to a strong, accelerating dynamic of more and more pressure for loyalty, harsher and harsher judgment of the disloyal, and greater and greater shrinking of pool of supporters.At the same time, Fisher continued, Trump is showing signs of cognitive deterioration,the confusion of Sioux Falls and Sioux City, several times referring to having beaten and/or now running against Obama, or the odd garbling of words on a number of occasions for it seems like about a year now. Add to these the tremendous pressure and threat he is under and you have, if you will, a trifecta of danger — lifelong habit, threat and possible cognitive decline. They each exacerbate the other two.Fisher noted that he anticipated the movement toward increased isolation in his 2017 contribution to the book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” which I mentioned earlier:Reflecting the interplay of personal and social, narcissistic concerns for self and a preoccupation with power may initially shape and limit those invited to the narcissistic leader’s social network, with sensitivity to slights and angry reactions to them further eroding that network.This process of exclusion, Fisher wrote, becomes self-reinforcing:A disturbing feature of this kind of dynamic is that it tends to feed on itself. The more the individual selects for those who flatter him and avoid confrontation, and the more those who have affronted and been castigated fall away, the narrower and more homogenous his network becomes, further flattering the individual but eventually becoming a thin precipice. President Nixon, drunk and reportedly conversing with the pictures on the White House walls, and praying with Henry Kissinger during his last nights in office, comes to mind.Craig Malkin, a lecturer in psychology at Harvard Medical School, raised a separate concern in an email responding to my inquiry:If the evidence emerging proves true — that Trump knew he lost and continued to push the big lie anyway — his character problems go well beyond simple narcissism and reach troubling levels of psychopathy. And psychopaths are far more concerned with their own power than preserving truth, democracy or even lives.In 2019, leaked memos written by Britain’s ambassador to the United States, Kim Darroch, warned British leaders that the Trump presidency could “crash and burn” and “end in disgrace,” adding: “We don’t really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept.”In 2020, Pew Research reported that “Trump Ratings Remain Low Around Globe.” Pew found:Trump receives largely negative reviews from publics around the world. Across 32 countries surveyed by Pew Research Center, a median of 64 percent say they do not have confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, while just 29 percent express confidence in the American leader. Anti-Trump sentiments are especially common in Western Europe: Roughly three-in-four or more lack confidence in Trump in Germany, Sweden, France, Spain and the Netherlands.A recent editorial in The Economist, carried the headline: “Donald Trump Poses the Biggest Danger to the World in 2024.” “A second Trump term,” the editorial concludes:would be a watershed in a way the first was not. Victory would confirm his most destructive instincts about power. His plans would encounter less resistance. And because America will have voted him in while knowing the worst, its moral authority would decline. The election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters in just a handful of states. In 2024 the fate of the world will depend on their ballots.Klaas, who opened this column, concludes that a crucial factor in Trump’s political survival is the failure of the media in this country to recognize that the single most important story in the presidential election, a story that dominates over all others, is the enormous threat Trump poses:The man who, as president, incited a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in order to overturn an election is again openly fomenting political violence while explicitly endorsing authoritarian strategies should he return to power. That is the story of the 2024 election. Everything else is just window dressing.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

      El lenguaje de Trump alarma por su tendencia al autoritarismo

      by

      El expresidente está centrando sus ataques más feroces en sus oponentes políticos internos, lo que genera nuevas preocupaciones entre los expertos en autocracia.Donald Trump llegó al poder en Estados Unidos con campañas políticas que atacaban sobre todo objetivos del exterior, como la inmigración procedente de países de mayoría musulmana y del sur de la frontera con México.Pero ahora, en su tercera campaña presidencial, ha dirigido algunos de sus ataques más despiadados y degradantes contra sus contrincantes a nivel nacional.Durante un discurso en el Día de los Veteranos, Trump utilizó un lenguaje que recordaba a los líderes autoritarios que ascendieron al poder en Alemania e Italia en la década de 1930, al degradar a sus adversarios políticos con palabras como “alimañas” que debían ser “erradicadas”.“La amenaza de fuerzas externas es mucho menos siniestra, peligrosa y seria que la amenaza desde el interior”, dijo Trump.Este giro hacia el interior ha alarmado a los expertos en autocracia que desde hace tiempo están preocupados por los elogios de Trump a dictadores extranjeros y su desdén por los ideales democráticos. Dijeron que el enfoque cada vez más intenso del expresidente en los enemigos internos era un sello distintivo de los líderes totalitarios peligrosos.Académicos, demócratas y republicanos que no apoyan a Trump vuelven a preguntarse qué tanto se parece el exmandatario a los actuales autócratas en otros países y cómo se compara con los líderes autoritarios del pasado. Quizá lo más urgente sea que se pregunten si su giro retórico hacia una narrativa que suena más fascista solo es su más reciente provocación pública a la izquierda, una evolución de sus creencias o una revelación.“Hay ecos de la retórica fascista y son muy precisos”, dijo Ruth Ben-Ghiat, profesora de la Universidad de Nueva York que estudia el fascismo. “La estrategia general es hacia una evidente deshumanización para que el público no proteste tanto por lo que quieres hacer”.El giro de Trump se produce mientras él y sus aliados idean planes para un segundo mandato que cambiaría algunas de las normas más arraigadas de la democracia estadounidense y el Estado de derecho.Estas ambiciones incluyen utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus rivales políticos, planear una vasta expansión del poder presidencial y nombrar abogados alineados con su ideología en puestos clave para que respalden sus acciones polémicas.Los aliados de Trump tachan las preocupaciones de alarmismo y cínicos ataques políticos.Steven Cheung, un vocero de la campaña, respondió a las críticas sobre los comentarios de las “alimañas” con el argumento de que provenían de liberales reactivos cuya “triste y miserable existencia será aplastada cuando el presidente Trump regrese a la Casa Blanca”. Cheung no respondió a las solicitudes de comentarios para este artículo.Algunos expertos en autoritarismo comentaron que, aunque el lenguaje reciente de Trump ha empezado a parecerse al utilizado por líderes como Hitler o Benito Mussolini, no refleja del todo a los líderes fascistas del pasado. Sin embargo, afirman que presenta rasgos similares a los de los autócratas actuales, como el primer ministro húngaro, Viktor Orbán, o el presidente turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.Las opiniones relativamente aislacionistas de Trump son contrarias al ansia de imperio y expansión que caracterizó los gobiernos de Hitler en Alemania y Mussolini en Italia. Como presidente, nunca pudo utilizar al ejército con fines políticos y encontró resistencia cuando intentó desplegar a los soldados contra los manifestantes.“Es demasiado simplista referirse a él como neofascista o autócrata o cualquier otra cosa: Trump es Trump y no tiene una filosofía particular que yo haya visto después de cuatro años como presidente”, comentó el exsecretario de Defensa Chuck Hagel, un republicano que formó parte del gabinete del presidente Barack Obama después de servir 12 años como senador de Nebraska.A pesar de eso, el estilo de campaña de Trump es “condenadamente peligroso”, dijo Hagel.“Continúa arrinconando a la gente y dándole voz a la polarización en nuestro país y el verdadero peligro es que eso siga creciendo y se apodere de la mayoría del Congreso, los estados y los gobiernos”, continuó Hagel. “En una democracia deben hacerse concesiones, porque solo hay una alternativa para ello: un gobierno autoritario”.Las multitudes que acuden a los eventos de Trump han respaldado sus llamados a expulsar a la clase política tradicional, destruir los “medios de noticias falsos” y rehacer agencias gubernamentales como el Departamento de Justicia.Sophie Park para The New York TimesTrump se ha vuelto cada vez más desenfrenado con cada campaña, un patrón que va en paralelo con los crecientes riesgos personales y políticos para él.En 2016, era un candidato arriesgado y con poco que perder, y sus andanadas a menudo iban acompañadas de burlas que provocaban risas en el público. Cuatro años después, el enfoque de Trump se volvió más iracundo mientras buscaba aferrarse al poder, y su mandato terminó en el ataque contra el Capitolio perpetrado por sus seguidores.En este ciclo electoral, Trump enfrenta más presión que nunca. En parte, su decisión de iniciar una campaña temprana por la Casa Blanca fue un intento de protegerse de múltiples investigaciones, que desde entonces han formulado la mayor parte de los 91 cargos por delitos graves que enfrenta.Políticamente, Trump corre el riesgo de convertirse en un histórico perdedor en dos ocasiones. En los casi 168 años de historia del Partido Republicano, solo un candidato presidencial, Thomas Dewey, ha perdido dos candidaturas a la Casa Blanca.Los ataques de Trump abarcan desde las más altas esferas de la política hasta los burócratas de bajo nivel a los que ha considerado poco leales.Ha insinuado que el máximo general de la nación debería ser ejecutado y ha pedido la “terminación” de partes de la Constitución. Ha declarado que si recupera la Casa Blanca no tendrá “más remedio” que encarcelar a sus oponentes políticos.Ha puesto a prueba el sistema legal con ataques a la integridad del poder judicial, además de arremeter contra fiscales, jueces y, de manera más reciente, contra una asistente legal en su juicio por fraude en Nueva York, a quienes ha tachado de “parcialidad política” y de estar “fuera de control”.En general, las multitudes que asisten a los actos de Trump han apoyado sus llamados a expulsar a la clase política dominante y destruir los “medios de noticias falsas”. Sus seguidores no se inmutan cuando elogia a líderes como Orbán, el presidente de China, Xi Jinping, y el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin.De pie en medio de casi dos decenas de banderas estadounidenses en una celebración del Día de la Independencia en Carolina del Sur en julio, Trump prometió represalias contra Biden y su familia.“Estoy listo para la batalla”, dijo. La multitud le respondió con una sonora ovación.Los seguidores gritaron en señal de aprobación cuando Trump calificó a los demócratas en Washington como “un nido enfermo de gente que necesita ser limpiado, y limpiado de inmediato”.Mientras la base de seguidores de Trump sigue apoyándolo férreamente, su regreso a la Casa Blanca podría decidirse por cómo los votantes indecisos y los republicanos moderados responden a sus posturas. En 2020, esos votantes hundieron su candidatura en cinco estados clave que estaban disputados y causaron la derrota de los republicanos en las elecciones de mitad de mandato del año pasado y en las legislativas de este mes en Virginia.Pero Trump y su equipo se han animado ante los indicios de que esos votantes parecen estar más abiertos a su campaña de 2024. Una encuesta reciente de The New York Times y el Siena College reveló que Trump supera a Biden en cinco de los estados más competitivos.En varias ocasiones, Biden ha tratado de presentar a Trump como extremista; hace poco declaró que el expresidente estaba usando un lenguaje que “hace eco de las mismas frases utilizadas en la Alemania nazi”. Biden también señaló los comentarios xenófobos que Trump hizo el mes pasado durante una entrevista con The National Pulse, un sitio web conservador, en la que dijo que los inmigrantes estaban “envenenando la sangre” de Estados Unidos.“Hay muchas razones para estar en contra de Donald Trump, pero caray, no debería ser presidente”, dijo Biden en San Francisco, en un evento para recaudar fondos.La preocupación por Trump se extiende a algunos republicanos, aunque son minoría en el partido.“Está subiendo el tono y eso muy preocupante”, comentó el exgobernador por Ohio John Kasich, quien en 2016 se presentó a la candidatura presidencial republicana contra Trump. “Simplemente no hay límite para la ira y el odio en su retórica y este tipo de atmósfera venenosa ha bajado nuestros estándares y daña mucho nuestro país”, aseveró.Trump y su equipo se han sentido respaldados por las señales de que los votantes indecisos y los republicanos moderados, que ayudaron a frenar su candidatura a la reelección de 2020, ahora parecen estar más abiertos a su campaña de 2024.Jordan Gale para The New York TimesLa llegada de Trump al poder estuvo acompañada por debates sobre si su ascenso, y el de otros líderes de todo el mundo con opiniones políticas similares, indicaba un resurgimiento del fascismo.El fascismo generalmente se entiende como un sistema de gobierno autoritario y de extrema derecha en el que el hipernacionalismo es un componente central.También se caracteriza por el culto a la personalidad de un líder fuerte, la justificación de la violencia o las represalias contra los oponentes y la repetida denigración del Estado de derecho, dijo Peter Hayes, un historiador que ha estudiado el ascenso del fascismo.Los líderes fascistas del pasado apelaron a un sentimiento de victimización para justificar sus acciones, dijo. “La idea es: ‘Tenemos derecho porque hemos sido víctimas. Nos han engañado y robado’”, dijo.Encuestas recientes han sugerido que los estadounidenses pueden ser más tolerantes con los líderes que violan las normas establecidas. Una encuesta publicada el mes pasado por el Instituto Público de Investigación Religiosa encontró que el 38 por ciento de los estadounidenses apoyaban tener un presidente “dispuesto a romper algunas reglas” para “arreglar las cosas” en el país. Entre los republicanos encuestados, el 48 por ciento respaldó esa opinión.Jennifer Mercieca, profesora de la Universidad Texas A&M que ha investigado la retórica política, dijo que Trump había utilizado el lenguaje como un cincel para socavar las normas democráticas.“Normalmente, un presidente utilizaría la retórica de guerra con el fin de preparar al país para la guerra contra otro país”, dijo. “Donald Trump usa la retórica de guerra en temas nacionales”.Michael C. Bender es corresponsal político y autor de Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost. @MichaelCBenderMichael Gold es corresponsal político del Times y cubre las campañas de Donald Trump y otros candidatos a las elecciones presidenciales de 2024. Más de Michael Gold More