More stories

  • in

    Note to Democrats: It’s Time to Take Up Your Hammers

    I would prefer to live in a world where the recent news that more than 146,000 New York City schoolchildren experienced homelessness during the last school year was regarded as a crisis demanding immediate changes in public policy. But if helping children isn’t enough to move New York’s political leaders to action — and, by all indications, it most certainly is not — they might consider doing it for the sake of the Democratic Party.There is a straight line from homeless schoolchildren to Donald Trump’s election victory.Homelessness is the most extreme manifestation of the nation’s housing crisis. America simply isn’t building enough housing, which has driven up prices, which has made it difficult for millions of households to keep up with monthly rent or mortgage payments. Every year, some of those people suffer at least a brief period of homelessness.Popular anger about the high cost of housing, which is by far the largest expense for most American households, helped to fuel Mr. Trump’s comeback. He recorded his strongest gains compared with the 2020 election in the areas where living costs are highest, according to an analysis by the Economic Innovation Group, a nonpartisan think tank.The results are more than a backlash against the party that happened to be in power. The animating principle of the Democratic Party is that government can improve the lives of the American people. The housing crisis is manifest proof that government is failing to do so. And it surely has not escaped the attention of the electorate that the crisis is most acute in New York City, Los Angeles and other places long governed by Democrats.Republicans promise to cut taxes and they cut taxes. Democrats promise to use tax dollars to solve problems and one in eight public school students in New York experienced homelessness last year. It is the ninth straight year the number of homeless schoolchildren in New York topped 100,000.The good news is that Democrats still have the power to do better. While the party will soon be sidelined in Washington, it is primarily local and state laws that impede home building, including zoning laws that limit development, building codes that raise costs and local control measures that give existing residents the power to prevent growth.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Pete Hegseth’s Mother Accused Her Son of Mistreating Women for Years

    Penelope Hegseth made the accusation in an email to her son in 2018, amid his contentious divorce. She said on Friday that she regretted the email and had apologized to him.The mother of Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, wrote him an email in 2018 saying he had routinely mistreated women for years and displayed a lack of character.“On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say … get some help and take an honest look at yourself,” Penelope Hegseth wrote, stating that she still loved him.She also wrote: “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”Mrs. Hegseth, in a phone interview with The New York Times on Friday, said that she had sent her son an immediate follow-up email at the time apologizing for what she had written. She said she had fired off the original email “in anger, with emotion” at a time when he and his wife were going through a very difficult divorce.In the interview, she defended her son and disavowed the sentiments she had expressed in the initial email about his character and treatment of women. “It is not true. It has never been true,” she said. She added: “I know my son. He is a good father, husband.” She said that publishing the contents of the first email was “disgusting.”Questions about Mr. Hegseth’s treatment of women have emerged in the weeks since Mr. Trump chose him, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, to lead the Pentagon. The issue is expected to be a subject of scrutiny during Senate confirmation hearings.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Shouldn’t Trump Voters Be Viewed as Traitors?

    The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on whether voters should be held accountable for their chosen candidate’s behavior.From my perspective, the attack on the Capitol spurred on by Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, the efforts to nullify the results of the 2020 election with false electors and unfounded court cases and the persistent effort to discredit those election results without evidence amounted to an attempt to overthrow a pillar of our democracy. More to the point, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 includes crimes against the nation described as treason, misprision of treason, rebellion or insurrection, seditious conspiracy and advocating the overthrow of government. I hold anyone voting for Trump at least morally guilty for the consequences of Jan. 6 and everything that follows the recent election. Would you agree that people who vote for Trump in light of these circumstances are themselves guilty of treasonous acts? — Name WithheldFrom the Ethicist:Something like three-quarters of Americans, surveys over the past year report, think democracy in America is threatened. To go by exit-poll data, those voters supported Trump in about the same proportions as those who thought democracy was secure. In a study published last year, researchers at U.C. Berkeley and M.I.T. provided evidence that democratic back-sliding around the world — with citizens voting for authoritarian leaders — is driven in part by voters who believe in democracy but doubt that the other side does. The researchers found that such voters, once shown the actual levels of support for democracy among their opponents, became less likely to vote for candidates who violated democratic norms. The general point is that not understanding the actual views of people of other parties — and assuming the worst of them — can be dangerous for democracy.Trump voters, for the most part, don’t think he committed treason. And your position can’t be that unknowingly voting for someone guilty of treason is itself treasonous. Perhaps you think that they should believe him to have been treasonous. Similar issues were aired when Henry Wallace, otherwise a highly dissimilar figure, ran for president in 1948. He had denounced the Marshall Plan, wanted the Soviet Union to play a role in the governance of Germany’s western industrial heartland and — detractors thought — was a Stalin apologist.Historians can debate whether he was a voice of conscience or a pawn of America’s adversaries. But suppose you were among those who viewed him as a traitor. To have extended the indictment to his supporters would have been to criminalize political disagreement. Besides, if voting for someone who has done bad things makes you guilty of them, most voters are in deep trouble. It’s easy to be inflamed by someone with a habit of making inflammatory statements. But there may be a cost when you deem those who vote for the other side as ‘‘the enemy from within.’’ That’s a term that Trump has freely employed, of course. You’ll want to ask yourself whether protecting democracy is best served by adopting this attitude.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Justice Dept. Girds for a Test of Its Independence

    President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to install loyalists have left officials fearful that he intends to carry out his threats of retribution but hopeful that rule-of-law norms can hold.It was an early case of Donald J. Trump seeking retribution through the Justice Department.In the first year of Mr. Trump’s first presidency, Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed a top federal prosecutor to review whether the F.B.I. had failed to fully pursue investigations involving Hillary Clinton, including an inquiry into the Clinton Foundation’s ties to a Russian uranium mining operation.The appointment of the prosecutor, John W. Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was championed by many on the right eager to turn the spotlight away from Mr. Trump’s ties to Moscow. But when Mr. Huber’s work ended years later with no charges or public report, Mr. Trump publicly called him a “garbage disposal unit for important documents.”As Mr. Trump begins filling out his administration and putting his stamp on Washington again, few issues loom larger than the resilience of the Justice Department’s tradition of independence and its commitment to the rule of law.Mr. Trump’s grievance-laden campaign rhetoric has left many current and former agency officials fearful that he will seek to turn it into a department of revenge aimed at foes inside and outside government.They said they worried that Mr. Trump’s past experiences with the Justice Department mean he is less likely this time to settle for an investigation like Mr. Huber’s — one that leads to little punishment or pain for anyone.In an interview, Mr. Huber characterized his work during Mr. Trump’s first term as a sign of the Justice Department’s ability to withstand any political pressure.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    A Bird Flu Pandemic Would Be One of the Most Foreseeable Catastrophes in History

    Almost five years after Covid blew into our lives, the main thing standing between us and the next global pandemic is luck. And with the advent of flu season, that luck may well be running out.The H5N1 avian flu, having mutated its way across species, is raging out of control among the nation’s cattle, infecting roughly a third of the dairy herds in California alone. Farmworkers have so far avoided tragedy, as the virus has not yet acquired the genetic tools to spread among humans. But seasonal flu will vastly increase the chances of that outcome. As the colder weather drives us all indoors to our poorly ventilated houses and workplaces, we will be undertaking an extraordinary gamble that the nation is in no way prepared for.All that would be more than bad enough, but we face these threats gravely hobbled by the Biden administration’s failure — one might even say refusal — to respond adequately to this disease or to prepare us for viral outbreaks that may follow. And the United States just registered its first known case of an exceptionally severe strain of Mpox.As bad as the Biden administration has been on pandemic prevention, of course, it’s about to be replaced by something far worse. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump’s pick to lead the nation’s vast public health agency, has already stated he would not prioritize research or vaccine distribution were we to face another pandemic. Kennedy may even be hastening its arrival through his advocacy for raw milk, which can carry high levels of the H5N1 virus and is considered a possible vector for its transmission.We might be fine. Viruses don’t always manage to adapt to new species, despite all the opportunities. But if there is a bird flu pandemic soon, it will be among the most foreseeable catastrophes in history.Devastating influenza pandemics arise throughout the ages because the virus is always looking for a way in, shape shifting to jump among species in ever novel forms. Flu viruses have a special trick: If two different types infect the same host — a farmworker with regular flu who also gets H5N1 from a cow — they can swap whole segments of their RNA, potentially creating an entirely new and deadly virus that has the ability to spread among humans. It’s likely that the 1918 influenza pandemic, for example, started as a flu virus of avian origin that passed through a pig in eastern Kansas. From there it likely infected its first human victim before circling the globe on a deadly journey that killed more people than World War I.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    The Inverted Morality of MAGA

    I admire Mitt Romney. He is, by all accounts, an outstanding husband and father. He built a successful investment firm by supporting successful young businesses like Staples. He served the public as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics and as a governor. As a senator, he had the courage to vote to convict Donald Trump twice, in the two separate impeachment trials, when few other Republicans did.But as Noah Millman writes on Substack, people in the MAGA movement take a different view of Romney. In private life, Romney compliantly conformed to the bourgeois norms of those around him. In business he contributed to the bloating of the finance and consulting sector. As a politician he bent himself to the needs of the moment, moving from moderate Republican to “extreme conservative.” As a senator, he sought the approval of the Washington establishment.Millman’s underlying point is it’s not sufficient to say that Trump is leading a band of morally challenged people to power. It’s that Trumpism represents an alternative value system. The people I regard as upright and admirable MAGA regards as morally disgraceful, and the people I regard as corrupt and selfish MAGA regards as heroic.The crucial distinction is that some of us have an institutional mind-set while the MAGA mind-set is anti-institutional.In the former view, we are born into a world of institutions — families, schools, professions, the structures of our government. We are formed by these institutions. People develop good character as they live up to the standards of excellence passed down in their institutions — by displaying the civic virtues required by our Constitution, by living up to what it means to be a good teacher or nurse or, if they are Christians, by imitating the self-emptying love of Christ. Over the course of our lives, we inherit institutions, steward them and try to pass them along in better shape to the next generation. We know our institutions have flaws and need reform, but we regard them as fundamentally legitimate.MAGA morality is likely to regard people like me as lemmings. We climbed our way up through the meritocracy by shape shifting ourselves into whatever teachers, bosses and the system wanted us to be. Worse, we serve and preserve systems that are fundamentally corrupt and illegitimate — the financial institutions that created the financial crisis, the health authorities who closed schools during Covid, the mainstream media and federal bureaucracy that has led the nation to ruin.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Mexico’s President and Trump Describe a Positive Talk but Differ on Migration Details

    Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, spoke to President-elect Donald J. Trump on Wednesday afternoon, and both later characterized their discussion as positive while providing different descriptions of what Mexico is doing to stave off a potential tariff war.While Mr. Trump posted on social media that Mexico had agreed to stop migration to the United States through Mexico, “effectively closing our Southern Border,” Ms. Sheinbaum limited her description of the migration-related issues they had discussed to migrant caravans no longer reaching the border with the United States.Still, Ms. Sheinbaum, who earlier in the day had made clear that Mexico would impose retaliatory tariffs in response to similar measures threatened by Mr. Trump, seemed to ease tensions by saying the exchange was “excellent.”“I had an excellent conversation with President Donald Trump,” she wrote on social media. “We addressed Mexico’s strategy regarding the migration phenomenon, and I shared that caravans are no longer reaching the northern border as they are being addressed within Mexico.”That update from Ms. Sheinbaum came after Mr. Trump jolted trade relations with Mexico by saying earlier in the week that he would impose a 25 percent tariff on all goods from the country unless Mexican authorities stopped migrants and drugs, such as fentanyl, from coming across the border. The proposed move raised concerns over the potential impact on Mexico’s economy, which relies on trade with the United States.Mr. Trump also posted on social media about the conversation with Ms. Sheinbaum, calling it “wonderful” and “productive.”“She has agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border,” Mr. Trump said, though Ms. Sheinbaum referred only to the caravans. “We also talked about what can be done to stop the massive drug inflow into the United States, and also, U.S. consumption of these drugs,” he added.Ms. Sheinbaum said earlier on Wednesday, “If there are U.S. tariffs, Mexico would also raise tariffs” — making clear her stance on Mexico’s potential response.Senior officials in her government and leading figures in Mexico’s governing party, Morena, also expressed support for retaliatory tariffs. Mexico’s economy minister, Marcelo Ebrard, said that about 400,000 jobs could be lost in the United States if Mr. Trump imposed the tariffs, calling the measure a “shot in the foot” while speaking alongside Ms. Sheinbaum at a morning news conference.Mexico’s president did not refer to tariffs, or trade tensions in general, in her post about her conversation with Mr. Trump. Instead, she said she and Mr. Trump had “discussed strengthening collaboration on security issues within the framework of our sovereignty and the campaign we are conducting in Mexico to prevent fentanyl consumption.” More

  • in

    ‘Excelente’: así fue la llamada de Sheinbaum y Trump tras la discusión arancelaria

    La presidenta de México dijo que habló con el presidente electo de EE. UU. sobre temas como migración y seguridad.La presidenta de México, Claudia Sheinbaum, dijo el miércoles por la tarde que tuvo una “excelente conversación” con el presidente electo Donald Trump, aliviando las tensiones pocas horas después de dejar claro que México impondría aranceles de represalia en respuesta a medidas similares anunciadas por Trump.“Tuve una excelente conversación con el presidente Donald Trump”, escribió Sheinbaum en redes sociales. “Abordamos la estrategia mexicana sobre el fenómeno de la migración y compartí que no están llegando caravanas a la frontera norte, porque son atendidas en México”.La actualización de Sheinbaum se produce después de que Trump sacudió las relaciones comerciales con México al decir a principios de esta semana que impondría un arancel de 25 por ciento a todos los productos procedentes del país si las autoridades mexicanas no detenían a los migrantes y las drogas, como el fentanilo, que cruzan la frontera. La medida suscitó preocupación por el posible impacto en la economía de México, que depende del comercio con Estados Unidos.Trump también publicó en las redes sociales sobre la conversación con Sheinbaum, calificándola de “maravillosa” y “productiva.”“Ella ha accedido detener la migración a través de México, y hacia Estados Unidos, cerrando efectivamente nuestra frontera sur”, dijo Trump, aunque Sheinbaum se refirió solo a que las caravanas de migrantes ya no llegan a la frontera con Estados Unidos. “También hablamos de lo que se puede hacer para detener la entrada masiva de drogas a Estados Unidos, y también, el consumo estadounidense de estas drogas”, agregó.Sheinbaum dijo previamente el miércoles: “si llega a haber aranceles, México también subiría aranceles”, dejando clara su postura sobre la posible respuesta de México.Altos funcionarios de su gobierno y figuras destacadas del partido gobernante de México, Morena, también expresaron su apoyo a los aranceles de represalia. El secretario de Economía de México, Marcelo Ebrard, dijo que se podrían perder alrededor de 400.000 empleos en Estados Unidos si Donald Trump impone los aranceles, calificando la medida como un “tiro en el pie”, al participar junto a Sheinbaum en una conferencia de prensa matutina.La presidenta de México no se refirió a los aranceles, ni a las tensiones comerciales en general, en su mensaje sobre su conversación con Trump. En cambio, dijo que ella y Trump también “hablamos de reforzar la colaboración en temas de seguridad en el marco de nuestra soberanía y de la campaña que estamos realizando en el país para prevenir el consumo de fentanilo”. More