More stories

  • in

    2022 Midterm Elections: What We Know So Far

    Listen and follow ‘The Run-Up’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Amazon MusicThe votes are still being tallied across the country — but we’re starting to get a picture of what these midterms were all about, and where American politics might be headed. Astead Herndon joins Michael Barbaro, host of “The Daily,” to sift through early midterm election results.Photo Illustration: The New York Times; Photo: Anna Watts for The New York TimesOn today’s episodeMichael Barbaro, host of “The Daily.”Additional resourcesFollow live updates on the midterms and results from top races.Lt. Gov. John Fetterman beat Mehmet Oz after a rocky campaign in Pennsylvania, surprising the G.O.P. and even Democrats.Election skeptics are winning races across the country. So far, nearly 200 Republicans who questioned or denied the results from 2020 have been elected.CreditsThis episode of “The Run-Up” is hosted by More

  • in

    The World’s Democracies Ask: Why Can’t America Fix Itself?

    Conversations across continents reveal alarm over the United States’ direction, as it slides away from ideals it once pressed other nations to adopt.Lin Wei-hsuan was just a child when he observed his first Taiwanese election almost two decades ago. His parents took him to watch the vote-counting, where volunteers held up each paper ballot, shouting out the choice and marking it on a board for all to see — the huge crowd of citizens inside, and many more watching live on television.The open process, established after decades of martial law, was one of several creative steps that Taiwan’s leaders took to build public trust in democracy and to win over the United States, whose support might deter China’s aim of unification.At the time, America was what Taiwan aspired to be. But now, many of the democracies that once looked to the United States as a model are worried that it has lost its way. They wonder why a superpower famous for innovation is unable to address its deep polarization, producing a president who spread false claims of election fraud that significant parts of the Republican Party and the electorate have embraced.“Democracy needs to revise itself,” said Mr. Lin, 26, a candidate for a local council, campaigning for efficient trash removal and lowering Taiwan’s voting age to 18 from 20. “We need to look at what it’s been doing, and do better.”Taiwan’s National Day celebration in Taipei in October.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesFor most of the world, the U.S. midterms are little more than a blip — but they are another data point on what some see as a trend line of trouble. Especially in countries that have found ways to strengthen their democratic processes, interviews with scholars, officials and voters revealed alarm that the United States seemed to be doing the opposite and sliding away from its core ideals.Several critics of America’s direction cited the Jan. 6 riots, a violent rejection of democracy’s insistence on the peaceful transfer of power. Others expressed concern about states’ erecting barriers to voting after the record turnout that resulted from widespread early and absentee voting during the pandemic. A few said they worried that the Supreme Court was falling prey to party politics, like judiciaries in nations struggling to establish independent courts.“The United States did not get into the position where it is now overnight,” said Helmut K. Anheier, a sociology professor at the Hertie School in Berlin and a principal investigator for the Berggruen Governance Index, a study of 134 countries in which America sits below Poland in quality of life as defined by access to public services such as health care and education. “It took a while to get there, and it will take a while to get out.”The nation’s deep polarization has helped prevent change in election systems.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesTough Critiques From Old FriendsOn a recent afternoon in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which has long had economic and family ties with Boston, visitors and residents expressed sorrow, disappointment and surprise about their neighbor’s political situation.“I’m very concerned,” said Mary Lou MacInnes, a registered nurse who was visiting the Halifax Public Gardens with her family. “I never thought it would happen in the U.S., but I think it’s going to be perhaps autocratic going forward.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Final Landscape: As candidates make their closing arguments, Democrats are bracing for potential losses even in traditionally blue corners of the country as Republicans predict a red wave.The Battle for Congress: With so many races on edge, a range of outcomes is still possible. Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, breaks down four possible scenarios.Voting Worries: Even as voting goes smoothly, fear and suspicion hang over the process, exposing the toll former President Donald J. Trump’s falsehoods have taken on American democracy.In 1991, studies showed that Canadians were almost evenly divided on which of the two countries had the better system of government. In a follow-up survey last year, only 5 percent preferred the American system.For some, in Canada and in other countries that consider themselves close friends of America, the first signs of trouble emerged with the presidential race in 2000, when George W. Bush won a narrow victory over Al Gore with a decision from the Supreme Court.For others, it was Donald J. Trump’s winning the 2016 election while losing the popular vote, followed by his refusal to accept defeat in 2020 and the lack of consequences for those who parroted his lies — including hundreds of Republican candidates in this year’s election.Mr. Trump has challenged many of the United States’ democratic norms.Damon Winter/The New York Times“A lot of people imagined that Trump was this sort of idiosyncratic one-off and once he was gone, he was no longer president, everything would click back into normal gear,” said Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s center-right prime minister when Mr. Trump took office. “And that’s clearly not the case.”“It’s like watching a family member, for whom you have enormous affection, engage in self-harm,” Mr. Turnbull added. “It’s distressing.”Other countries do things differently.Canada has undertaken steady changes to improve its election system. In 1920, the country put federal elections under the control of an independent official who does not report to any government or politicians and who has the power to punish rule breakers. Responsibility for setting electoral boundaries was turned over to 10 similarly independent commissions, one for every province, in 1964.Taiwan and more than a dozen countries have also established independent bodies to draw voting districts and ensure that votes are cast and counted uniformly and fairly.The approach is not foolproof. Nigeria, Pakistan and Jordan all have independent election commissions. Many of their elections have still failed to be free and trusted.But in the places where studies show that turnout and satisfaction with the process are highest, elections are run by national bodies designed to be apolitical and inclusive. More than 100 countries have some form of compulsory or automatic voter registration; in general, democracies have been making it easier to vote in recent years, not more difficult.The world’s healthiest democracies also have stricter limits on campaign donations — in Canada, political donations by corporations and unions are banned, as are political action campaigns to promote parties or candidates. And many democracies have embraced change.Canadians almost universally believe their electoral system is better than America’s, a sharp swing in views in recent decades.Mark Blinch/ReutersNew Zealand overhauled its electoral system in the 1990s with a referendum, after elections in which the party with the most votes failed to win a parliamentary majority. South Africa is pursuing changes to its political-party-based electoral system to make it easier for independent candidates to run and win.Such systemic change would be possible in the United States only with overwhelming consensus in Congress, and even then, it may be out of the question in a country where campaign financing is protected as freedom of speech and states cherish their authority over elections in a federal system designed to be a bulwark against autocratic abuses.Jennifer McCoy, a political scientist at Georgia State University who co-wrote a recent report on how polarized countries have depolarized in the past, said partisan divisions have kept the United States stuck in place, but so has myopia: Americans rarely look abroad for ideas.“We have such a myth around our Constitution and American exceptionalism,” she said. “First it makes people very complacent, and second, it takes leaders a very long time to recognize the risk we’re facing. It means it’s very hard to adapt.”Weakening Democracy WorldwideOn a recent morning in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital, near a street named after Lenin during the Soviet Union’s occupation, a group of demonstrators waved Ukrainian flags and posters calling for an end to Russian aggression.Lithuania is a staunch U.S. ally and vocal supporter of Ukraine’s fight for self-determination, but even among the most committed, doubts about the strength and future of American-led democracy are common.A flag-raising ceremony for the three Baltic States in Vilnius, Lithuania, in March. The Baltic States look warily at their neighbors’ direction.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesArkadijus Vinokuras, 70, is an actor and activist who helps organize the rallies. Asked what came to mind when he heard the phrase “American democracy,” he responded with a slogan: “America is the defender of global democracy and the guarantor of the vitality of Western democracies!”That was how it seemed 20 years ago — then came Putin, Trump and a divided America.“Now,” he said, “even the biggest fan of the U.S. has to ask the question: How could this happen to the guarantor of democracy?”It’s a common query in countries that once looked up to the United States.On Thursday, in the political science department at Cheikh Anta Diop University in Dakar, Senegal, half a dozen graduate students gathered in a professor’s office to debate whether elections could be stolen in America.“You take the U.S. democracy after Trump, no doubt that it’s weaker,” said Souleymane Cissé, a 23-year-old graduate student.Some of the world’s leaders have taken advantage of that perceived weakness. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, elected leaders with autocratic tendencies, have praised Mr. Trump and his wing of the Republican Party.Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas in August.Emil Lippe for The New York TimesIn India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has pursued a Hindu nationalist agenda, leading to accusations of democratic backsliding, now insists that the West is in no position to pressure any country over democratic benchmarks.From Myanmar to Mali, leaders of military coups have also found that they can subvert democracy without significant international pushback.“If you’re an autocrat or wannabe autocrat, the price that you pay is much less than the price that you used to pay 30 years ago,” said Kevin Casas-Zamora, a former vice president of Costa Rica who heads the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, a pro-democracy group with 34 member states. “And that’s partly because of the U.S.”Even reformers are starting to wonder what they can reasonably expect of their most high-minded institutions. In South Africa, when a new chief justice was appointed a few months ago, there were questions about whether the court was apolitical or even could be.All these countries, and more, are confronting an enormous challenge that America has made more visible: antidemocratic actors, inside democracies.Mr. Vinokuras said that Lithuania and its neighbors had been more resistant to such forces because they can see where they lead by looking next door.“The fact that unbridled populism in the Baltic States is not yet gaining ground is, I repeat, because of fascist Russia,” he said.The dismantling of a Soviet-era monument in Riga, Latvia, in August. Kaspar Krafts/F64, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWhat democracies need, he added, are investments in improvements — the best ideas, no matter where they come from — and a strong commitment to ostracizing those who violate rules and norms.“In general, democracy has degenerated, it has become useless,” he said. “It’s become more like anarchy. Unlimited tolerance for everything destroys the foundations of democracy.”In Taiwan, many people made a similar point: The threat from China makes democracy more precious, helping people remember that its benefits can be realized only through shared connections across divides.“If a country is going to keep moving forward,” Mr. Lin said, “the leaders of both parties should play the role of a bridge.”Reporting was contributed by More

  • in

    Your Tuesday Briefing: The U.S. Midterms Loom

    Plus a warning at COP27 and Kherson in distress.Since 1934, nearly every president has lost seats in his first midterm election.Nic Antaya for The New York TimesA U.S. midterms overviewAmericans will finish voting in midterm elections today, which could change the balance of power in state and federal legislative bodies, influence foreign policy and foreshadow the 2024 presidential race.Many races are teetering on a knife’s edge, but Democrats are bracing for losses even in traditionally blue areas. Republican control of the House, Senate or both could embolden the far-right and lawmakers in Washington who traffic in conspiracy theories and falsehoods. Here are four potential election outcomes.Democrats have depicted Republicans as extreme, while Republicans have portrayed Democrats as out of touch on inflation and immigration. Crime is a key issue: Many Americans think there’s a surge in violence, which could benefit Republicans, even though experts disagree on the data.It could also further politicize the U.S. approach to Iran and the war in Ukraine and allow Republicans to slow the torrent of aid to Kyiv. That could benefit Moscow: Russian trolls have stepped up efforts to spread misinformation before the midterms, which researchers say is an attempt to influence the outcome.2024: Donald Trump — who may announce a run soon — and Gov. Ron DeSantis, the top stars of the Republican Party, held competing rallies in Florida. And President Biden, who hoped to heal America’s divides, faces a polarized nation.Cost: These midterms have shattered all spending records for federal and state elections in a nonpresidential year, surpassing $16.7 billion.Many countries and companies have made only halting progress toward previous climate goals.Mohammed Salem/ReutersLosing “the fight of our lives”António Guterres, the U.N. secretary general, gave a stark warning in his opening remarks at yesterday’s COP27 session. “We are in the fight of our lives, and we are losing,” he said. “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.”“Loss and damage” — code words for the question of which countries will pay for the effects of climate change — is a key agenda item. Guterres issued an impassioned plea to help Pakistan and other vulnerable countries.The State of the WarKherson Braces for Battle: Civilians and Kremlin-appointed occupation officials have fled the city in southern Ukraine, but Russian troops appear to be digging in for an intense fight. Here’s why control of Kherson matters so much to both sides.Infrastructure Attacks: As they struggle to maintain an electricity grid heavily damaged by Russian missiles, officials in Kyiv say they have begun planning for a once unthinkable possibility: a complete blackout that would force the evacuation of the Ukrainian capital.On the Diplomatic Front: The Group of 7 nations announced that they would work together to rebuild critical infrastructure in Ukraine that has been destroyed by Russia’s military and to defend such sites from further attacks.Refugees: The war has sent the numbers of Ukrainians seeking shelter in Europe soaring, pushing asylum seekers from other conflicts to the end of the line.For the first time, “funding arrangements” for loss and damage were included on the formal agenda of the climate talks, overcoming longstanding objections from the U.S. and the E.U. Costs: On Sunday, the World Meteorological Organization said that the planet had most likely witnessed its warmest eight years on record. And famous glaciers are disappearing.Tactics: Activists want a “fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty.” The U.N. also called for an extension of early warning systems, which could save millions from climate disasters. And Belize is working to protect its coral reefs — and simultaneously reduce its debt. Egypt: Protesters are notably absent as Egypt cracks down on dissent. And Alaa Abd El Fattah, one of the country’s most prominent activists, is intensifying a hunger strike to press for his release from prison.A damaged residential building in the region of Kherson.Hannibal Hanschke/EPA, via ShutterstockHard times in KhersonRussian forces are stepping up efforts to make life unbearable for civilians in the occupied southern region of Kherson.Power was cut Sunday night, and Ukrainians say Russian troops have destroyed electrical infrastructure and have placed mines around water towers. An exiled Ukrainian official said that repairs are impossible without specialists and equipment. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, said that Russia was planning more mass strikes on energy infrastructure.Kherson City is the only regional capital to be captured by Russia, and a battle for its control has loomed for months. Its loss would be a major blow to Moscow, and Ukraine says it has no evidence that Russian forces will abandon the region.Ukraine: The military has reclaimed over 100 towns and villages in the region since it began a counteroffensive in August.Russia: Kremlin-appointed authorities ordered the “evacuation” of all civilians there last month, and occupation officials have reduced their presence. Since then, Russian personnel have shuttered essential services and looted the city, according to residents and Ukrainian officials.Other updates:Russia’s Parliament is poised to pass laws that intensify an L.G.B.T.Q. crackdown.Polls across Europe show a slight dip in popular support for Ukraine, but backing remains strong.THE LATEST NEWSAround the WorldHoward Schultz, the interim chief executive of Starbucks, said that the company was “highly concerned and humbled by the environment.”Valerie Plesch for The New York TimesChief executives seem to think a recession is nigh: Of the 409 S&P 500 companies that have held analyst calls this quarter, the word has come up 165 times.Italy’s hard-right government is taking a harder stand against migrants: Authorities are refusing to let men leave a ship that arrived from Libya.Other Big StoriesMeta is said to be planning the biggest layoffs in its history this week.Jimmy Kimmel will host the Oscars in March.A man in Philadelphia ate 40 chickens in 40 days. He’s done now, though the last few days were intense: “My body is ready to repair,” he told The Times.A Morning ReadMelanie Jones, a biologist at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan, is skeptical about the idea.Jennilee Marigomen for The New York TimesThe concept of a “wood-wide web” has overturned conventional views of forests. Instead of competing for resources, the theory goes, trees collaborate and communicate underground through fungal filaments.Although those findings influence Hollywood and forest management discussions alike, the theory is up for debate. Most experts believe that organisms whose members sacrifice their own interests for the community rarely evolve, a result of the powerful force of natural selection.Lives lived: Ela Bhatt was a champion of gender equality who secured protections for millions of Indian women in the work force. She died at 89.TAIWAN DISPATCHA new life for old bomb sheltersThis bunker has been converted into a temple.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesPeople in Keelung, a port city in Taiwan, have prepared for war for hundreds of years: The city had its first foreign attack, by the Dutch, in 1642.Those anxieties have left a mark on Keelung, which has the highest density of air-raid shelters of any city on the highly fortified island. Kitchens connect to underground passageways that tunnel into the sandstone. Rusty gates at the ends of alleys lead to dark maws that are filled with memories of war, and sometimes trash or bats — or an altar or restaurant annex.Now, some of the city’s nearly 700 bomb shelters are being renovated and turned into cultural oases. Some are part of restaurants, while others sprout murals or altars.“It’s a space for life,” said a breakfast shop owner who uses her bunker for storage. “And a space for death.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookJoe Lingeman for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Cyd Raftus McDowell.If you’re celebrating Thanksgiving, try yuca purée. If you’re not, the Brazilian-inspired dish is still a satisfying and creamy side.What to Watch“Mood,” a genre-bending BBC America series, explores online sex work.What to ReadIn his new book, Bob Dylan riffs on 66 songs. Dwight Garner writes that the prose sounds “a lot like his own song lyrics, so much so that part of me wanted this to be a new record instead.”The CosmosAstronomers have found Earth’s closest known black hole. It’s dormant, at least for now.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Tempted with bait (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. My colleague Alexandra Berzon discussed election deniers and the U.S. midterm elections on NPR’s “Fresh Air.”“The Daily” is about the Democrats’ fight for white working class voters.You can always reach us at briefing@nytimes.com. More

  • in

    What’s at Stake in These Elections

    Midterm elections in the United States are often presented as a referendum on the party in power, and that message appears to be resonating this fall. But voters need to consider the intentions of the party that hopes to regain power, too, and what each vote they cast will mean for the future of this country.Eight Republican senators and 139 Republican representatives sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election on the basis of spurious allegations of voter fraud and other irregularities. Many of them are likely to win re-election, and they may be joined by new members who also have expressed baseless doubts about the integrity of the 2020 election. Their presence in Congress poses a danger to democracy, one that should be on the mind of every voter casting a ballot this Election Day.It will also be the first time that the U.S. electoral machinery will be tested in a national election after two years of lawsuits, conspiracy theories, election “audits” and all manner of interference by believers in Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election. That test comes alongside the embrace of violent extremism by a small but growing faction of the Republican Party.The greatest danger to election integrity may, in fact, come from the results of state and local races that will determine who actually conducts the election and counts the votes in 2024. In the weeks that followed the 2020 election, Mr. Trump and his supporters saw their efforts to deny the election results and prove rampant voter fraud thwarted by two things: first, their inability to produce credible evidence that such fraud had occurred and, second, an election infrastructure that was defended by honorable public servants who refused to accept specious claims of wrongdoing.Over the past two years, Republicans in dozens of states have tried to dismantle that infrastructure piece by piece, particularly by filling key positions with Trump sympathizers. As this board wrote in September, “Rather than threatening election officials, they will be the election officials — the poll workers and county commissioners and secretaries of state responsible for overseeing the casting, counting and certifying of votes.” Many of those positions are being contested this week.With Mr. Trump said to be readying his bid to return to the White House, this board urges American voters to consider how important each vote cast on Election Day, at every level of government, will be. Even if the member of Congress in your district has refused to accept Mr. Trump’s lies about this election, there are other races on the ballot in many states for offices — including secretary of state, attorney general and governor — that will play crucial roles in overseeing and certifying the 2024 presidential election.Still, with that election two years away, many voters say they are more concerned with the present threats to their livelihoods than with the equally serious but less visible threat to democracy. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that “more than a third of independent voters and a smaller but noteworthy contingent of Democrats said they were open to supporting candidates who reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election, as they assigned greater urgency to their concerns about the economy than to fears about the fate of the country’s political system.”Indeed, voters have good reason to look at the current moment and wonder whether the Biden administration and congressional Democrats are doing enough to meet it. High inflation is making it harder for Americans to afford what they need and want. Overall crime has risen, causing people to fear for their safety. The federal government is struggling to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and America’s increasingly tense relations with China are undermining global peace and prosperity.Republicans have presented these midterm elections as a referendum on Democratic leadership, and that message appears to be resonating.But voters need to consider the intentions of the party that hopes to regain power, too.Republicans have offered few specific plans for addressing issues like inflation, immigration and crime — and even if they win control of Congress, they are unlikely to win enough seats to shift federal policy significantly over the next two years.A Republican-controlled Senate would, however, be able to block President Biden from filling vacancies on the federal bench and on the Supreme Court. It would become more difficult to obtain confirmations for executive branch officials, as well.Republican candidates have also pledged to devote significant time and energy to investigating the Biden administration. “I don’t think Joe Biden and his handlers are exactly eager to sign Republican legislation into law, so our hearings are going to be the most important thing that we can have,” Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado told a recent rally.In addition to that spectacle, Republicans are threatening to stage another showdown over federal spending.At some point in the next year, the government is expected to hit the limit of its authorized borrowing capacity, or debt ceiling. To meet the commitments Congress already has authorized, it will need to raise that limit. This ought to be a matter of basic housekeeping, because failing to pay the nation’s bills would risk a global financial crisis. But debt ceiling votes have instead become recurring opportunities for extortion.This board has called for Congress to eliminate the debt ceiling, replacing it with a common-sense law that says the government can borrow whatever is necessary to provide for the spending authorized by Congress. There is no public benefit in requiring what amounts to a second vote on spending decisions. But for now, the ceiling endures, and Republicans have made clear that if they win control of Congress, they intend to use it as a bargaining chip with the White House to advance their party’s fiscal goals.One priority on that list is cutting taxes. Republicans already are preparing to move forward with legislation to extend the 2017 tax cuts for individuals, which mostly benefit wealthy households, while eliminating some of the offsetting increases in corporate taxation — a plan that is not easily reconciled with the party’s stated concerns about inflation or the rising federal debt.Republican proposals would also make it more difficult for the Internal Revenue Service to prevent wealthy Americans from cheating on their taxes. Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, who is in position to become speaker if Republicans win a majority, has said the “first bill” that would pass under his leadership would reverse an $80 billion funding increase for the I.R.S. Congress approved that funding in August so the I.R.S. can crack down on rampant tax fraud by high-income households.Some senior Republicans have called for repealing another key piece of the August legislation, known as the Inflation Reduction Act: a measure that limits drug costs for seniors on Medicare, including a $35 monthly cap on payments for insulin.Republicans also have floated plans to roll back more firmly established benefits. The Republican Study Committee, a conservative policy working group whose membership includes more than half of the current crop of House Republicans, published a budget plan in June calling for Congress to gradually increase the retirement age for full Social Security benefits to 70 to check the rising cost of the program. The plan also would increase the age of eligibility for Medicare.Democrats could make it more difficult for Republicans to pursue these goals by raising the debt limit or changing the rules in the weeks between the election and the end of the year.Democrats have largely failed to connect with voters’ concerns about inflation and public safety during this campaign season. They have struggled to communicate their tangible achievements, including a big boost in funding for local law enforcement and bipartisan gun safety legislation, a historic federal investment in developing clean and low-cost sources of energy to confront climate change and the cost of living, and a breakthrough measure to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients.Undoubtedly, there is more work to be done on these and other issues, including the health of the economy and the broken state of immigration policy. Voters need to decide which party they trust to do that work.But the 2022 elections are also an opportunity for every American to do their part in defending the integrity of American elections. The task of safeguarding our democracy does not end with one election, and it requires all of us to play a role. Our nation’s governance depends on it.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    In 2022, Reality Has a Conservative Bias

    “Reality,” Stephen Colbert remarked at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2006, “has a well-known liberal bias.” That was back when he played a caricature of a conservative instead of a caricature of a liberal (I assume that’s the point of his current late-night role, at least), and the line rolled out brilliantly into the midst of a decade where reality was delivering some punishing blows to the Republican Party’s theories of the world.In that period, the years from the invasion of Iraq through the re-election of Barack Obama, the G.O.P. staked itself to the conceit that the Iraq war would disarm a dictator (the armaments in question mostly did not exist) and revolutionize the Middle East (it did, but not for the better). It staked its domestic policy on tax cuts and a housing bubble, touting the strength of the George W. Bush-era economy right up to the point when the worst financial crisis since the 1920s hit.Then in Obama’s first term, the G.O.P. staked itself to the claims that deficit spending and easy money would lead to runaway inflation or debt crisis (they did not), that Obamacare would wreck the health care market (flaws and all, it didn’t), that entitlement reform was an appropriate prescription in a slowly recovering economy (it was a good long-term goal but not an ideal 2010 priority). And as a small capstone, the G.O.P. assumed that the polls were skewed against Mitt Romney in 2012, which they emphatically were not.I was a participant in some of this, overestimating the urgency of the deficit problem and the risks of Obamacare. So I have experience from which to observe that the Democrats in 2022 find themselves struggling because reality has finally changed sides, and now has a conservative bias.What has reality delivered? To a Democratic Party that convinced itself there were few near-term limits on how much stimulus could be pumped into the economy, it has delivered the worst inflation since the 1980s.To a Democratic Party that spent the Trump era talking itself into a belief that immigration enforcement is presumptively immoral and that a de facto amnesty doesn’t have real downsides, it has delivered the southern border’s highest-recorded rate of illegal crossings.And to a Democratic Party whose 2020 platform promised to “end the era of mass incarceration and dramatically reduce the number of Americans held in jails and prisons while continuing to reduce crime rates,” it has delivered a multiyear spike in homicide rates that’s erased at least 20 years of gains.The key thing to stress about all of these developments is that they don’t prove that liberals are simply “wrong about crime” or “wrong about inflation,” any more than the events of 2003-12 simply proved that conservatives are “wrong about foreign policy” or “wrong about entitlements.”Rather, ideological and partisan commitments exist in a dynamic relationship with reality. You can get things right for a while, sometimes a long while, and then suddenly you pass a tipping point and your prescription starts delivering the downsides that your rivals warned about and that you convinced yourself did not exist.Thus in the current situation, the fact that right now America is suffering a serious crime wave doesn’t prove that Democrats (and many Republicans) were wrong about criminal justice reform 10 or 15 years ago. It just suggests that there’s a point at which de-carceration or decriminalization may need a tough-on-crime corrective.Likewise Democrats weren’t wrong about the risks of inflation being low in the Obama era or in the recent past. It’s just that except for a few Cassandras like Larry Summers they were wrong to imagine that those risks could be forever minimized, that there was no upper bound on Covid-era spending. In the same way today’s inflation doesn’t retrospectively vindicate the Obama era’s deficit hawks — but it does suggest that some of their proposals might be worth revisiting.So the question for the aftermath of Tuesday’s election isn’t whether Democrats will abandon their ideology but whether that ideology can adapt itself to what reality is saying.And whether for Joe Biden or for his possible successors, a recent model is available: Just after the era when Colbert’s quip had bite, a leader emerged who persuaded the G.O.P. to abandon its fixation on deficits and just run the economy hot, who endorsed universal health insurance and pledged to protect entitlements, and who acknowledged that the Iraq war had been a grave mistake and promised a less utopian, more realistic foreign policy.That’s right: It was Donald Trump who closed the gap — in rhetoric, if not always in his eventual policymaking — between the Republican Party and reality. Now the Democrats, facing a cold rendezvous with reality’s conservative bias, need leaders who can do the same.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

  • in

    They Are Betting $100 Million on Pluralism. Will It Work?

    In February 2020, in the midst of a vitriolic presidential election, an idealistic group of donors from across the ideological spectrum met to plan an ambitious new project. They called themselves the New Pluralists and pledged to spend a whopping $100 million over the next decade to fight polarization by funding face-to-face interactions among Americans across political, racial and religious divides.Fixing what is broken in American democracy requires more than changing voter ID laws or the shape of our congressional districts, they argued. It requires forging deep personal connections that will change hearts and minds and ultimately American culture itself.Their experiment rests on a basic idea: Far too many Americans lack the skills, the opportunity and even the inclination to work together across lines of difference toward a common goal. Part of the solution, these donors believe, is embracing a very old idea that has fallen out of fashion: pluralism.The term “cultural pluralism” was coined in the early 1900s by Horace Kallen, a Jewish philosopher who proposed it in the midst of a huge wave of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. He argued that rather than try to stamp out their Polishness, Italianness or Jewishness, as many white Anglo-Saxon Protestants wanted, America should be a “nation of nationalities” where people learn to work together across lines of difference. The freedom to be different but still participate in political life as a vital part of the whole was key to the country’s genius, he argued. Mr. Kallen thought of the American people not as a melting pot, where everyone turns into the same bland stew, but as an orchestra, where distinct sounds join harmoniously.That notion fuels the New Pluralists, too. Although it’s hard to find two people who describe the project the same way, respecting difference, not papering it over, is seen as central.In his era, Mr. Kallen drew fierce criticism from those who accused him of promoting a Balkanization of the country. A scathing review of his book in The New York Times in 1924 declared that the nation faced a stark choice: “Is it to remain one in spirit, tradition and language, or is it to become a hodgepodge boardinghouse for alien groups?” It wasn’t until the 1980s, with the rise of the idea of multiculturalism, that his ideas were widely embraced.Today the New Pluralists project is grappling with a similar set of challenges as the ones Mr. Kallen wrote about over a century ago. An influx of immigrants is once again challenging prevailing notions of who Americans are and what it takes to make a country harmonious and whole. At the same time, the country does indeed feel Balkanized along a host of fault lines: rural versus urban, young versus old, religious versus secular and, of course, red versus blue.But the critiques that pluralism faces today are different. Far from being considered too radical, pluralism might not sound radical enough in an era of insurrection and potential coups. To some activists, pluralism sounds like both-sides-ism or a call to meet in the mushy middle. And yet pluralism feels more crucial than ever. Our multiracial democracy can’t survive without it.I discovered the New Pluralists this summer after I attended an online workshop on depolarizing hosted by one of its grantees, a group called Braver Angels. I found the group online because, at a time when so much attention is paid to toxic politics, I wanted to know more about groups that stood for just the opposite.Co-founded by Bill Doherty, a Minneapolis-based marriage counselor, Braver Angels is an organization with grass-roots chapters across the country that teach conservatives and liberals to debunk lazy stereotypes and clarify disagreements without yelling. In the workshop I attended, reds and blues wrestled with how they typecast the other side. Nearly all the participants were white and looked to be over the age of 40. And they were, by definition, open to reaching across the partisan divide. In other words, they were low-hanging fruit. I came away feeling more hopeful about the country nonetheless.I realized then that there was a whole ecosystem of groups, created during the Trump years, that is dedicated to bridging divides: the People’s Supper, which helps communities host potluck dinners and other events that promote racial and political reconciliation; the One Small Step project at StoryCorps, which brings together strangers for recorded conversations about their lives; More in Common, which surveys public opinion and put out an influential paper about the country’s “exhausted majority.” The New Pluralists help fund them all.The idea for the New Pluralists came about in the wake of Donald Trump’s election. Jennifer Hoos Rothberg, the New York-based executive director of the Einhorn Collaborative, a foundation started by a Wisconsin-bred hedge fund manager, said it kept getting calls from people who were alarmed by the level of polarization and thought they could help fix it. One call came from Melissa Weintraub, a longtime conflict resolution practitioner who had worked with Israelis and Palestinians.“You know that tool kit I use in the Middle East? I want to bring that to Wisconsin and Iowa,” Ms. Rothberg recalled Ms. Weintraub saying.Right then and there, Ms. Rothberg told me, “we set up a rapid response organizing around bridging divides.” The Einhorn Collaborative gave away $6 million in one-off funds but wanted to do something bigger. In 2019, Ms. Rothberg invited other donors involved in similar work to a meeting in New York to see if they could pool their money to fund these projects on a larger scale. She purposefully invited donors from across the political spectrum. Stand Together Trust, formerly the Charles Koch Institute, which funds social ventures to solve common problems, agreed to join. But that made some social justice funders on the left balk because they didn’t want to be in the same room, Fay Twersky, who attended that meeting as a representative of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, told me.In the end, about a dozen donors stuck with it. They landed on the name the New Pluralists, partly because pluralism felt neutral in an era when so many words have taken on a partisan flavor. This past summer, they brought together a group of grantees for a retreat in Atlanta in an attempt to foster relationships among them. They included the civil rights thinker john powell of the Othering & Belonging Institute and Rachel Peric of Welcoming America. They are called field builders in the New Pluralists’ overly cerebral parlance. The big idea here is to turn pluralism into a coherent field — like public health — with clearly defined norms and practices that can be replicated, measured and improved.Lennon Flowers, a co-founder of the People’s Supper, told me that the gathering felt like a salve. She said the money and credibility her organization gets from the New Pluralists filter down to the local partners, showing that “this work matters and this proves we’re not alone.”But a big question remains: Can a group of wealthy donors change American culture from above? How exactly does that work? If you are trying to change a law, you hire a lobbyist. To change American culture, whom do you hire?Nevertheless, the group is doubling down on its vision. Over the summer, it put out a request for grant proposals from grass-roots groups engaged in this work. Eight hundred applications poured in — too many to fund. That’s when the New Pluralists began an effort to challenge donors to devote $1 billion over the next decade to pluralism, an initiative it announced at a White House unity summit in September.“The need is so great, and the opportunity is so great that we need more of philanthropy to take this seriously,” the New Pluralists’ executive director, Uma Viswanathan, told me.Even the most fervent of the New Pluralists admit that they aren’t sure they will succeed. But I hope they do. After all, orchestras don’t sound good by accident. People have to practice.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

  • in

    Can Campaigning on Abortion Rescue the Democrats?

    Lisa Chow and Dan Powell and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherWith an unpopular president and soaring inflation, Democrats knew they had an uphill battle in the midterms.But the fall of Roe v. Wade seemed to offer the party a way of energizing voters and holding ground. And one place where that hope could live or die is Michigan.On today’s episodeLisa Lerer, a national political correspondent for The New York Times.A demonstrator in Detroit supporting a ballot measure that would bolster abortion protections in Michigan.Emily Elconin for The New York TimesBackground readingSome top Democrats say that their party has focused too much attention on abortion rights and not enough on worries about crime or the cost of living.The outcome of the midterms will affect abortion access for millions of Americans. Activists on both sides are focused on races up and down the ballot.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Lisa Lerer contributed reporting.Fact-checked by Susan Lee.The Daily is made by Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Anita Badejo, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Chelsea Daniel, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Sofia Milan, Ben Calhoun and Susan Lee.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Cliff Levy, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Desiree Ibekwe, Wendy Dorr, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello and Nell Gallogly. More