newyorker--2020-12-29--New Yorker Classics That Resonated in 2020

This has been a strange year to be an archivist , a role that seeks to illuminate the present by excavating the past .
Typically , my routine consists of unearthing pieces that allow readers to experience some measure of diversion or quiet reflection amid the hubbub of the world swirling around them .
This year , it was the world that seemed , at times , to stand still .
As many of us began working remotely , the fundamentals of my job shifted .
Living through such an extraordinary time has expanded my work in surprising and meaningful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yorker published a dissent-themed Archival Issue that reflected the growing calls for change resounding across the globe .
The urgent nature of the pandemic and life under quarantine elicited new examinations of past pieces about outbreaks of disease , such as Richard Preston ’ s “ Crisis in the Hot Zone ” and Michael Specter ’ s “ Nature ’ s Bioterrorist.
” James Baldwin ’ s “ Letter from a Region in My Mind ” drew an upswell of interest during the marches for racial justice over the summer , as my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns out that , for many , there ’ s been more time to spend on archival spelunking—alighting on themes both familiar and further afield—when there ’ s very little chance of being interrupted by in-person office meetings and social commitments .
All that extra time has certainly been put to good use .
Last year , we débuted New Yorker Classics , a newsletter designed to highlight notable and newly digitized pieces from our archive .
It quickly became one of our most popular dispatches , with readers discovering and revisiting stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Lottery ” to Nora Ephron ’ s “ Moving On.
” This year , we turned our archival spotlight on pieces by Arthur Miller , Hannah Arendt , Gabriel García Márquez , and many others .
And we created new themed collections on such subjects as con artists and hoaxes , literary portraits , and the nineteen-eighties .
As this tumultuous year winds down , we ’ re offering ten of our classic stories from the archive as both a break from 2020 and illuminating points of comparison .
We hope that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoy these pieces this holiday season .
At the beginning of 2020 , with the country embroiled in impeachment hearings , I was interested in addressing present events by resurfacing an unexpected piece from the past .
In a serendipitous moment , I recalled a ruminative essay , from 1996 , by the playwright Arthur Miller , which explored how he came to write his iconic drama “ The Crucible.
” It was during his research on the Salem witch trials , Miller explains , that he found a fitting setting for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writes about the fraught political climate of the fifties , when politicians of all stripes were cowed by seemingly daily attacks from Senator Joseph McCarthy .
In hindsight , Miller observes , McCarthy , like so many other firebrands from history , appeared “ nearly comical , a self-aware performer keeping a straight face as he does his juicy threat-shtick.
” Miller was struck by the lengths to which otherwise rational people were willing to go to indulge the paranoid fantasies of an erratic politician .
During periods of political delirium , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be all too easy to perceive demagogues as invincible ; yet , once a political fever breaks , even giants begin to look small .
In 1963 , the journalist Hannah Arendt published an expansive five-part series on the trial of Adolf Eichmann , a Nazi war criminal and one of the chief architects of the Holocaust .
Although Arendt recognized the monstrosity of Eichmann ’ s actions , she also perceived him as a bureaucrat , motivated primarily , she argued , by ambition and opportunism rather than anti-Semitism .
Arendt ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarianism and the ease with which despotism can take hold .
In one of the most famous passages in the piece , she notes that the trial , with its revelations about the genocide , resulted in a lesson on “ the fearsome word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.
” It ’ s all too easy , she argues , to dismiss men like Eichmann as outliers .
Arendt ’ s piece is ultimately a study of what occurs when the unimaginable is normalized—and when a society begins not only to tolerate persecution but to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Future , ” by Lionel Trilling The literary critic Lionel Trilling contributed multiple book reviews to The New Yorker during the forties and fifties .
One of my favorites is his review of the novel “ 1984 , ” George Orwell ’ s dystopian masterpiece , which ran in the magazine when the book was published , more than seventy years ago .
Trilling calls “ 1984 ” a “ profound , terrifying , and wholly fascinating book.
” The novel , he argues , serves as a clarion call against the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of despots and dictators .
He perceived it as a fantasy of a political future as yet untold .
Orwell , Trilling writes , was fascinated by the effects of emotional and cultural dispossession—and he had an oracle ’ s gift for identifying the vulnerabilities within our civic compacts .
Trilling ’ s examination of Orwell ’ s vision presents an intriguing glimpse into another fraught era—the beginning of the Cold War .
And his review offers a prescient reminder that the dissemination of misinformation often goes hand in hand with authoritarianism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Mollie Panter-Downes In a year in which New York City was turned upside down by COVID-19 , it was striking to revisit Mollie Panter-Downes ’ s dispatches from London during the Second World War .
Panter-Downes wrote a regular column from the city for forty-five years , and some of those pieces are collected in her terrific anthology of war letters , “ London War Notes.
” In the fall of 1940 , she wrote an essay about how residents were faring during the early days of the Blitz .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by everyone except police and salvage workers , stared gauntly like a thoroughfare in a dead city .
It would have been no surprise to see grass growing out of the pavements.
” For Londoners , she wrote , there were no longer such things as good nights .
Reading about the heroic efforts of relief workers amid the ghostly avenues feels eerily familiar .
And Panter-Downes ’ s ability to render visceral the unsettling metamorphosis of the lives she observes offers us a trenchant account of the resiliency of a city and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work is as exhilarating as the sporting events he has covered—in addition to his many other subjects—for nearly six decades .
Angell , who turned a hundred this year , has a poet ’ s grasp of the small , intimate moments that capture the arc of his subjects ’ lives .
In 1980 , he profiled Bob Gibson , one of the greatest pitchers of all time .
Gibson , who played for the St. Louis Cardinals , was a complex figure .
As an athlete , he thrilled his colleagues with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play the off-field role of the sports icon .
His prowess was so transcendent that , as Angell wrote , he “ made pitching look unfair.
” Like much of Angell ’ s work , this piece is a corker—soaring with crackling energy and verve .
You don ’ t have to be a baseball fan to appreciate the rousing quality of Angell ’ s prose .
Just take a break from your daily routine and revel in one of the great sports essays by a veritable master of the form .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to President-elect Biden ’ s coronavirus advisory board , has covered medicine for The New Yorker since 1998 .
In 2008 , he published a fascinating report on the case of a thirtysomething woman who had developed an unbearable itch on the side of her head , after an episode of shingles .
“ It crawled along her scalp , ” he writes , “ and no matter how much she scratched it would not go away .
‘ I felt like my inner self , like my brain itself , was itching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s something contagious about the idea of an itch ; we can feel a tickle on the back of our neck as Gawande describes each new detail of the woman ’ s affliction .
The piece is paced like a thriller , showcasing the woman ’ s alarm as her condition progresses to a horrifying dénouement .
Like a medical Edgar Allan Poe , Gawande crafts a spine-tingling narrative that demonstrates how an otherwise common condition can suddenly transform into a nightmare .
In the year of COVID-19 , Malcolm Gladwell ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 1918 became relevant again .
A mutated strain of the virus spread across every continent in the early twentieth century , killing more Americans in the course of several months than were killed in the First World War , the Second World War , the Korean War , and the Vietnam War combined .
Streetcars were converted into hearses to house the dead , and entire cities were overwhelmed .
Gladwell ’ s piece unfolds as a riveting series of flashbacks to 1918 , offering a salient look at what can happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globe .
It also presents a daunting lesson in how we might battle the current pandemic , and new viruses that eventually emerge .
“ The Autumn of the Patriarch , ” by Gabriel García Márquez The Nobel laureate Gabriel García Márquez , the author of “ Love in the Time of Cholera ” and “ One Hundred Years of Solitude , ” among other novels , published nearly a dozen pieces in the magazine in the course of three decades .
In 1976 , he contributed a short story about an aging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to his downfall .
The novelist later claimed that the character was a composite of several Latin-American dictators , particularly Juan Vicente Gómez , of Venezuela .
García Márquez explores the increasing isolation of his protagonist , and he describes the despot ’ s growing frustration as he realizes that his remaining acolytes are useless— “ that they were dissembling from habit , that they lied to him out of fear , that nothing was true in that crisis of uncertainty which was rendering his glory bitter.
” García Márquez ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political wreckage that can result when an untethered leader is surrounded solely by extremists and sycophants .
Whitney Balliett , one of the magazine ’ s music critics for five decades , once remarked that jazz is the “ art of surprise.
” Balliett ’ s 1976 profile of the jazz legend Charlie ( Bird ) Parker chronicles the musician ’ s personal excesses and artistic virtuosity .
It ’ s an arresting portrait of a musician whose expansive view of the genre allowed him to immerse himself—and his listeners—in unexplored musical waters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fluctuations in tone and timbre of a jazz maestro .
Parker ’ s “ rhythms had a muscled , chattering density , ” the writer observes .
“ He crackled and poured and roared.
” As he chronicles Parker ’ s lyrical evolution , Balliett uncovers the hidden layers of one of music ’ s most complex innovators .
He presents the artist in full , documenting the ways in which Parker upended the world of jazz and inspired a new generation of musicians—leaping , floating , and gliding melodiously along the way @

This has been a strange year to be an archivist, a role that seeks to illuminate the present by excavating the past. Typically, my routine consists of unearthing pieces that allow readers to experience some measure of diversion or quiet reflection amid the hubbub of the world swirling around them. This year, it was the world that seemed, at times, to stand still. As many of us began working remotely, the fundamentals of my job shifted. Living through such an extraordinary time has expanded my work in surprising and meaningful ways. In July, The New Yorker published a dissent-themed Archival Issue that reflected the growing calls for change resounding across the globe. The urgent nature of the pandemic and life under quarantine elicited new examinations of past pieces about outbreaks of disease, such as Richard Preston’s “Crisis in the Hot Zone” and Michael Specter’s “Nature’s Bioterrorist.” James Baldwin’s “Letter from a Region in My Mind” drew an upswell of interest during the marches for racial justice over the summer, as my colleague Michael Luo has noted. It turns out that, for many, there’s been more time to spend on archival spelunking—alighting on themes both familiar and further afield—when there’s very little chance of being interrupted by in-person office meetings and social commitments.
More from the Archive Sign up for Classics, a twice-weekly newsletter featuring notable pieces from the past.
All that extra time has certainly been put to good use. Last year, we débuted New Yorker Classics, a newsletter designed to highlight notable and newly digitized pieces from our archive. It quickly became one of our most popular dispatches, with readers discovering and revisiting stories ranging from Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” to Nora Ephron’s “Moving On.” This year, we turned our archival spotlight on pieces by Arthur Miller, Hannah Arendt, Gabriel García Márquez, and many others. And we created new themed collections on such subjects as con artists and hoaxes, literary portraits, and the nineteen-eighties. As this tumultuous year winds down, we’re offering ten of our classic stories from the archive as both a break from 2020 and illuminating points of comparison. We hope that you’ll take some time to enjoy these pieces this holiday season.
—Erin Overbey, archive editor
“Why I Wrote ‘The Crucible,’ ” by Arthur Miller
Photograph from The New York Times / Getty
At the beginning of 2020, with the country embroiled in impeachment hearings, I was interested in addressing present events by resurfacing an unexpected piece from the past. In a serendipitous moment, I recalled a ruminative essay, from 1996, by the playwright Arthur Miller, which explored how he came to write his iconic drama “The Crucible.” It was during his research on the Salem witch trials, Miller explains, that he found a fitting setting for his parable about persecution and paranoia. He writes about the fraught political climate of the fifties, when politicians of all stripes were cowed by seemingly daily attacks from Senator Joseph McCarthy. In hindsight, Miller observes, McCarthy, like so many other firebrands from history, appeared “nearly comical, a self-aware performer keeping a straight face as he does his juicy threat-shtick.” Miller was struck by the lengths to which otherwise rational people were willing to go to indulge the paranoid fantasies of an erratic politician. During periods of political delirium, he seems to be saying, it can be all too easy to perceive demagogues as invincible; yet, once a political fever breaks, even giants begin to look small.
“Eichmann in Jerusalem,” by Hannah Arendt
In 1963, the journalist Hannah Arendt published an expansive five-part series on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal and one of the chief architects of the Holocaust. Although Arendt recognized the monstrosity of Eichmann’s actions, she also perceived him as a bureaucrat, motivated primarily, she argued, by ambition and opportunism rather than anti-Semitism. Arendt’s true subject is the appeal of authoritarianism and the ease with which despotism can take hold. In one of the most famous passages in the piece, she notes that the trial, with its revelations about the genocide, resulted in a lesson on “the fearsome word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.” It’s all too easy, she argues, to dismiss men like Eichmann as outliers. Arendt’s piece is ultimately a study of what occurs when the unimaginable is normalized—and when a society begins not only to tolerate persecution but to embrace it.
“Orwell on the Future,” by Lionel Trilling
2020 in Review New Yorker writers reflect on the year’s highs and lows.
The literary critic Lionel Trilling contributed multiple book reviews to The New Yorker during the forties and fifties. One of my favorites is his review of the novel “1984,” George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, which ran in the magazine when the book was published, more than seventy years ago. Trilling calls “1984” a “profound, terrifying, and wholly fascinating book.” The novel, he argues, serves as a clarion call against the kind of intellectual apathy that facilitates the ascent of despots and dictators. He perceived it as a fantasy of a political future as yet untold. Orwell, Trilling writes, was fascinated by the effects of emotional and cultural dispossession—and he had an oracle’s gift for identifying the vulnerabilities within our civic compacts. Trilling’s examination of Orwell’s vision presents an intriguing glimpse into another fraught era—the beginning of the Cold War. And his review offers a prescient reminder that the dissemination of misinformation often goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.
“Living Through the Blitz,” by Mollie Panter-Downes
In a year in which New York City was turned upside down by COVID-19, it was striking to revisit Mollie Panter-Downes’s dispatches from London during the Second World War. Panter-Downes wrote a regular column from the city for forty-five years, and some of those pieces are collected in her terrific anthology of war letters, “London War Notes.” In the fall of 1940, she wrote an essay about how residents were faring during the early days of the Blitz. “The great sweep of Regent Street, deserted by everyone except police and salvage workers, stared gauntly like a thoroughfare in a dead city. It would have been no surprise to see grass growing out of the pavements.” For Londoners, she wrote, there were no longer such things as good nights. Reading about the heroic efforts of relief workers amid the ghostly avenues feels eerily familiar. And Panter-Downes’s ability to render visceral the unsettling metamorphosis of the lives she observes offers us a trenchant account of the resiliency of a city and its people.
“Distance,” by Roger Angell
Photograph from AP
Roger Angell’s work is as exhilarating as the sporting events he has covered—in addition to his many other subjects—for nearly six decades. Angell, who turned a hundred this year, has a poet’s grasp of the small, intimate moments that capture the arc of his subjects’ lives. In 1980, he profiled Bob Gibson, one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Gibson, who played for the St. Louis Cardinals, was a complex figure. As an athlete, he thrilled his colleagues with his extraordinary talent, yet he refused to play the off-field role of the sports icon. His prowess was so transcendent that, as Angell wrote, he “made pitching look unfair.” Like much of Angell’s work, this piece is a corker—soaring with crackling energy and verve. You don’t have to be a baseball fan to appreciate the rousing quality of Angell’s prose. Just take a break from your daily routine and revel in one of the great sports essays by a veritable master of the form.
“The Itch,” by Atul Gawande
Atul Gawande, who was recently appointed to President-elect Biden’s coronavirus advisory board, has covered medicine for The New Yorker since 1998. In 2008, he published a fascinating report on the case of a thirtysomething woman who had developed an unbearable itch on the side of her head, after an episode of shingles. “It crawled along her scalp,” he writes, “and no matter how much she scratched it would not go away. ‘I felt like my inner self, like my brain itself, was itching,’ she says.” There’s something contagious about the idea of an itch; we can feel a tickle on the back of our neck as Gawande describes each new detail of the woman’s affliction. The piece is paced like a thriller, showcasing the woman’s alarm as her condition progresses to a horrifying dénouement. Like a medical Edgar Allan Poe, Gawande crafts a spine-tingling narrative that demonstrates how an otherwise common condition can suddenly transform into a nightmare.
“The Dead Zone,” by Malcolm Gladwell
In the year of COVID-19, Malcolm Gladwell’s sweeping report on the devastating influenza pandemic of 1918 became relevant again. A mutated strain of the virus spread across every continent in the early twentieth century, killing more Americans in the course of several months than were killed in the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined. Streetcars were converted into hearses to house the dead, and entire cities were overwhelmed. Gladwell’s piece unfolds as a riveting series of flashbacks to 1918, offering a salient look at what can happen when a catastrophic virus sweeps across the globe. It also presents a daunting lesson in how we might battle the current pandemic, and new viruses that eventually emerge.
“The Autumn of the Patriarch,” by Gabriel García Márquez
Illustration by Adams Carvalho
The Nobel laureate Gabriel García Márquez, the author of “Love in the Time of Cholera” and “One Hundred Years of Solitude,” among other novels, published nearly a dozen pieces in the magazine in the course of three decades. In 1976, he contributed a short story about an aging Caribbean dictator whose intensifying paranoia and destructiveness lead to his downfall. The novelist later claimed that the character was a composite of several Latin-American dictators, particularly Juan Vicente Gómez, of Venezuela. García Márquez explores the increasing isolation of his protagonist, and he describes the despot’s growing frustration as he realizes that his remaining acolytes are useless—“that they were dissembling from habit, that they lied to him out of fear, that nothing was true in that crisis of uncertainty which was rendering his glory bitter.” García Márquez’s tale is a penetrating meditation on the political wreckage that can result when an untethered leader is surrounded solely by extremists and sycophants.
“Bird,” by Whitney Balliett


newyorker--2020-12-29--Andrea Lee Reads “The Rivals”

Andrea Lee Reads “The Rivals”

Andrea Lee reads her story from the January 4 & 11 , 2021 , issue of the magazine .
Lee @ @ @ @ @ books , including the novel “ Lost Hearts in Italy ” and the story collection @ @ @ @ @ new book , “ Red Island House , ” will be published in March .

Photograph courtesy Alexandra Fallows
Andrea Lee reads her story from the January 4 & 11, 2021, issue of the magazine. Lee is the author of four books, including the novel “Lost Hearts in Italy” and the story collection “Interesting Women.” Her new book, “Red Island House,” will be published in March.


newyorker--2020-12-29--The Deep Origins of Latino Support for Trump

Many Americans were surprised when it became clear that Trump had done better than expected among Latinos .
In places such as South Florida and South Texas , he did much better , but all across the country Trump won a greater share of the Latino vote than he did four years ago .
He made marked improvements in Democratic cities such as Houston , Las Vegas , and Philadelphia , and even in Chicago , Los Angeles , and New York , which were not the focus of the Trump campaign ’ s spending on Latino outreach .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence that Latino conservatism is on the rise and will continue to grow .
Latino advocates on the Democratic side , meanwhile , seem reluctant to talk about the shift .
Some have downplayed its significance and expressed frustration that it has received so much media attention , as if Trump actually won the Latino vote .
Rather than dwelling on Trump ’ s gains , Latino Democrats would have us focus on the fact that a surge of Latinos turning out to vote helped Joe Biden win critical swing states such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance among Latino voters there , too .
To think about the Latino shift toward Trump , though , is to talk about the future of Latino politics .
It means considering what lessons all Americans need to learn about Latinos , so that they aren ’ t surprised by the demographic ’ s diverse political views .
It means taking part in the ongoing conversation about whether Latinos should think of themselves more as a group or as individual Americans , and how political parties should see them .
And it means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appealing about a President whose immigration policies included separating families at the Mexican border , and whether their support was to be expected , or a fluke , or a sign of a red wave to come .
In response to these questions , Latino Republicans have a lot to say .
Americans “ think that we are Democratic , ” Cabrera Morris said , “ and we are not.
” The Bush family had a long track record of cultivating Latino support .
Bush ’ s father , George H. W. Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
who presided over the formal recognition of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly , an auxiliary arm of the organization that , among other things , encourages conservative Latinos to run for office and recruits Latinos to join the Party .
Bush ’ s brother Jeb had married a woman from Mexico ; helped their father win Puerto Rico ’ s first ever Republican primary , in 1980 ; worked as campaign manager for Florida ’ s Ileana Ros-Lehtinen , the first Cuban-American congresswoman ; and was popular among Florida ’ s Latino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As for George W. Bush , he spoke some Spanish , reportedly had tamales on Christmas Eve , was the first President to have an official Cinco de Mayo celebration at the White House , promised comprehensive immigration reform , and hired many Latinos to work for his Administration , some of whom recalled a picture of them standing side by side outside the White House .
One of them is Daniel Garza , who today is the president of the LIBRE Initiative , a branch of Americans for Prosperity , a Koch-family-backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Garza worked in the White House ’ s Office of Public Liaison .
Bush ’ s victories , he said , were “ confirmation in the minds of many conservative Latinos that if you just engage , if you just do the work , Latinos will respond.
” Bush ’ s 2000 campaign appointed Latinos to head statewide grassroots groups , sent surrogates to talk with Latinos across the country , wrote op-eds , and ran ads on radio and television .
“ Viva Bush was a full-on effort with staff and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush had made such a great effort , he won a greater share of the Latino vote in 2004 than any Republican Presidential candidate before him .
Trump ’ s appeal to Latinos reminded some conservatives more of Ronald Reagan than Bush .
For the 1980 election , Reagan hired the San Antonio advertising executive Lionel Sosa to create ads for his campaign ’ s national Latino outreach .
Reagan famously told Sosa that he would have an easy job , because Latinos were Republicans who “ just don ’ t know it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Reagan turned away from Richard Nixon ’ s ethnicity-centered approach—defined by gestures such as the appointment of Latinos , the establishment of government agencies to represent them , and the creation of government jobs—to instead craft an appeal based on conservative ideology .
His Latino campaign was able to articulate the core characteristics of Latino conservatism : family values , work ethic , patriotism , and anti-Communism .
Alfonso Aguilar was another Bush Administration official in the photo outside the White House .
A lawyer born in Puerto Rico , Aguilar was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Citizenship , where he said he was responsible for developing programs to promote the civic integration of immigrants .
Even though Aguilar worked in the Bush Administration , he never considered himself a “ Bushie , ” because , he said , he was more ideologically conservative than his boss .
Today , he is the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles , and a member of the Catholics for Trump advisory board .
About a decade ago , Aguilar said , he advocated for a return to Reagan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latinos with conservative ideas .
Now Aguilar says he feels , “ in a way , vindicated , ” because Trump showed that Republicans can win Latino votes without talking , above all , about immigration or having a “ radical open-borders agenda.
” It ’ s worth noting that Reagan signed an immigration bill—the Immigration Reform and Control Act , from 1986—that led to legal status for more than two million undocumented immigrants .
Reagan also highlighted the importance of maintaining close ties with Mexico , and argued that we didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries .
As for Bush , many Americans saw his positions on religious faith , so-called family values , the economy , and the military as quite conservative—hardly Republican-lite .
Nevertheless , Aguilar argues that Democrats misunderstand the aspirations of immigrants .
They come to the United States , he said , to find economic and religious freedom , and because they believe in America ’ s promise of equal opportunity and inclusion .
They see themselves , he argues , not as members of a minority group but as individuals and families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something better in the United States .
This year , in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic , Latino voters , like other Americans , identified the economy as their top concern .
Aguilar considers Trump ’ s economic populism as his main appeal to Latino voters , adding that this aspect of his Presidency also marked his contrast with establishment figures such as Bush , John McCain , and Mitt Romney .
They focussed on Latino small-business owners , who are certainly important , given that they make up one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But most Latinos , Aguilar noted , are employees , and it was meaningful to them that , under Trump—and before the pandemic—they enjoyed reduced rates of unemployment and poverty , increased rates of homeownership , and rising family median incomes .
To explain Trump ’ s appeal , Aguilar also pointed to his Administration ’ s support for religious liberty and the right to life .
From early on in his Presidency , Trump made inroads with evangelical leaders , and during his four years in office he talked about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and prayer in schools .
At a church in Miami , Trump said , “ America was not built by religion-hating socialists ” but , rather , “ by churchgoing , God-worshiping , freedom-loving patriots.
” There were also his Supreme Court picks , including , most recently , Amy Coney Barrett .
Most curiously , Aguilar named Donald Trump ’ s message of “ true inclusion ” as a third factor fuelling Latino support for the President .
He said that Latinos thought , “ You ’ re including me because you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not seeing me as a Hispanic that ’ s separate .
Democrats just don ’ t understand this , because they follow the modern theories of all multiculturalism.
” Aguilar added , “ Well , to me , that ’ s not true inclusion—that ’ s separating people .
That ’ s marginalizing people .
I think President Trump made them feel like part of America.
” The truth is , of course , more complicated .
As Betty Cárdenas , the national chairwoman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Rio Grande Valley emphasized their Hispanic identity first , as part of their American identity .
They didn ’ t want to be absorbed into the American melting pot but , rather , preferred to hang on to their unique Hispanic culture .
More broadly , when African-American voters fled the G.O.P .
in the 1964 Presidential election , in part because of the Party ’ s nomination of Barry Goldwater , who had opposed that year ’ s Civil Rights Act , Republicans understood that they had to replace those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became primary targets .
A memo to the Ford campaign ’ s deputy chairwoman , in 1976 , acknowledged that Latinos were “ different from one another , ” and , even more importantly , that they differed from African-American voters .
Latinos could be “ played off against the negroes to break the monolithic low class mass ” that voted Democrat , the memo read .
Republicans had to show Latinos that they would “ do more for them and not prefer the negroes ( as the Democrats do ) .
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own version of identity politics .
During the Republican National Convention , he pardoned the Black ex-convict Jon Ponder , delivered remarks at a naturalization ceremony inside the White House , and showcased his endorsement by Latino Border Patrol union members , one of whom said that he had “ personally witnessed the negative effects of illegal immigration.
” Rachel Campos-Duffy , a Fox News contributor of Mexican and Spanish descent , objected to the racial thinking of Democrats , who , she said , “ divide , divide , divide , divide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this racialized preset narrative that they have in their mind.
” She said that liberals “ would try and make me somehow have to tear myself in half , because half of me has this indigenous blood and half of me is , you know , God forbid , imperialist Spanish blood .
That ’ s all bullshit—we ’ re all Americans.
” The “ bottom line , ” she said , is that Trump did “ something that we were told by all these race hucksters that you can ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social message based on patriotism , based on love of country , based on prosperity .
And , regardless of whether you were Black , Hispanic , or white , that this could appeal to you because you were going to benefit from it.
” When I asked Cabrera Morris , the Florida political consultant , about whether the enthusiasm that Latino Republicans felt for Trump can carry over , she responded , “ I don ’ t know , ” adding that it will “ depend on whether the candidate has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Trump did.
” Her advice for the next Republican candidate : “ Do not be afraid , ” and “ stand for what you believe.
” She said that she wouldn ’ t necessarily agree with everything the candidate says , just as she didn ’ t love everything about Trump .
But , because Latinos “ have been pushed around ” by politicians in both parties , she said , they ’ re drawn to strong leaders .
Campos-Duffy loved Trump for how he challenged the Republican orthodoxy , but she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even greater success among Latinos .
“ Trump is not perfect , ” she said , “ but what if you had Trump ’ s policies with somebody who wasn ’ t quite as polarizing ?
” Regardless of who the next candidate is , Campos-Duffy said , “ I just pray that the Republicans can somehow realize this golden opportunity that is now in front of them—thanks , ironically , to Donald Trump .
Because he ’ s supposedly this racist who , you know , blah blah blah , hates Latinos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it for a second .
I don ’ t believe he ’ s racist .
I believe that he was just looking out for the working class .
And that includes Latinos , you know ?
” She said that she wants to tell other Republicans , “ Listen , there is momentum .
Wake up .
”

Bertica Cabrera Morris, a business and political consultant who was born in Cuba and has spent most of her adult life in central Florida, has helped several Republican Presidential candidates with Latino outreach, among them George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump. Some won; some lost, as Trump did this fall, but not before increasing his share of the Latino vote to thirty-two per cent, up four points from 2016, according to exit polls. “We are terribly sad” that Trump lost, Cabrera Morris said, but she expressed optimism that the next Republican will win a greater share of the Latino vote. “We moved the needle, and we changed history,” she said.
Many Americans were surprised when it became clear that Trump had done better than expected among Latinos. In places such as South Florida and South Texas, he did much better, but all across the country Trump won a greater share of the Latino vote than he did four years ago. He made marked improvements in Democratic cities such as Houston, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia, and even in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, which were not the focus of the Trump campaign’s spending on Latino outreach. The shift toward Trump has given Latino Republicans confidence that Latino conservatism is on the rise and will continue to grow.
Latino advocates on the Democratic side, meanwhile, seem reluctant to talk about the shift. Some have downplayed its significance and expressed frustration that it has received so much media attention, as if Trump actually won the Latino vote. Rather than dwelling on Trump’s gains, Latino Democrats would have us focus on the fact that a surge of Latinos turning out to vote helped Joe Biden win critical swing states such as Arizona, even though Trump improved his performance among Latino voters there, too.
To think about the Latino shift toward Trump, though, is to talk about the future of Latino politics. It means considering what lessons all Americans need to learn about Latinos, so that they aren’t surprised by the demographic’s diverse political views. It means taking part in the ongoing conversation about whether Latinos should think of themselves more as a group or as individual Americans, and how political parties should see them. And it means reckoning with what millions of Latinos found appealing about a President whose immigration policies included separating families at the Mexican border, and whether their support was to be expected, or a fluke, or a sign of a red wave to come. In response to these questions, Latino Republicans have a lot to say. Americans “think that we are Democratic,” Cabrera Morris said, “and we are not.”
Leaders of the Hispanic Republican cause today—historically, they’ve preferred the ethnic label Hispanic to others, such as Latino or, heaven forbid, Latinx—haven’t felt such momentum since the election of George W. Bush in 2000. At the time, many conservative Latinos saw the Texas governor, who went on to earn at least forty per cent of the Latino vote in his Presidential reëlection campaign, in 2004, as the future of the Republican Party. Latinos represented a rapidly growing share of the American population, and, for Republicans to remain relevant in the future, the Party had to make inroads with them. Bush showed that it could be done.
The Bush family had a long track record of cultivating Latino support. Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, was the chairman of the R.N.C. who presided over the formal recognition of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, an auxiliary arm of the organization that, among other things, encourages conservative Latinos to run for office and recruits Latinos to join the Party. Bush’s brother Jeb had married a woman from Mexico; helped their father win Puerto Rico’s first ever Republican primary, in 1980; worked as campaign manager for Florida’s Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the first Cuban-American congresswoman; and was popular among Florida’s Latino communities as governor of that state. As for George W. Bush, he spoke some Spanish, reportedly had tamales on Christmas Eve, was the first President to have an official Cinco de Mayo celebration at the White House, promised comprehensive immigration reform, and hired many Latinos to work for his Administration, some of whom recalled a picture of them standing side by side outside the White House.
One of them is Daniel Garza, who today is the president of the LIBRE Initiative, a branch of Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-family-backed advocacy group. During the Bush years, Garza worked in the White House’s Office of Public Liaison. Bush’s victories, he said, were “confirmation in the minds of many conservative Latinos that if you just engage, if you just do the work, Latinos will respond.” Bush’s 2000 campaign appointed Latinos to head statewide grassroots groups, sent surrogates to talk with Latinos across the country, wrote op-eds, and ran ads on radio and television. “Viva Bush was a full-on effort with staff and clout,” Garza said. Because Bush had made such a great effort, he won a greater share of the Latino vote in 2004 than any Republican Presidential candidate before him.
Trump’s appeal to Latinos reminded some conservatives more of Ronald Reagan than Bush. For the 1980 election, Reagan hired the San Antonio advertising executive Lionel Sosa to create ads for his campaign’s national Latino outreach. Reagan famously told Sosa that he would have an easy job, because Latinos were Republicans who “just don’t know it yet.” Believing this to be true, Reagan turned away from Richard Nixon’s ethnicity-centered approach—defined by gestures such as the appointment of Latinos, the establishment of government agencies to represent them, and the creation of government jobs—to instead craft an appeal based on conservative ideology. His Latino campaign was able to articulate the core characteristics of Latino conservatism: family values, work ethic, patriotism, and anti-Communism.
Alfonso Aguilar was another Bush Administration official in the photo outside the White House. A lawyer born in Puerto Rico, Aguilar was the first chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship, where he said he was responsible for developing programs to promote the civic integration of immigrants. Even though Aguilar worked in the Bush Administration, he never considered himself a “Bushie,” because, he said, he was more ideologically conservative than his boss. Today, he is the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, and a member of the Catholics for Trump advisory board.
About a decade ago, Aguilar said, he advocated for a return to Reagan’s theory that Republicans could win over Latinos with conservative ideas. Now Aguilar says he feels, “in a way, vindicated,” because Trump showed that Republicans can win Latino votes without talking, above all, about immigration or having a “radical open-borders agenda.” It’s worth noting that Reagan signed an immigration bill—the Immigration Reform and Control Act, from 1986—that led to legal status for more than two million undocumented immigrants. Reagan also highlighted the importance of maintaining close ties with Mexico, and argued that we didn’t need a border fence separating our countries. As for Bush, many Americans saw his positions on religious faith, so-called family values, the economy, and the military as quite conservative—hardly Republican-lite.
Nevertheless, Aguilar argues that Democrats misunderstand the aspirations of immigrants. They come to the United States, he said, to find economic and religious freedom, and because they believe in America’s promise of equal opportunity and inclusion. They see themselves, he argues, not as members of a minority group but as individuals and families who left Latin America to look for something better in the United States.
This year, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, Latino voters, like other Americans, identified the economy as their top concern. Aguilar considers Trump’s economic populism as his main appeal to Latino voters, adding that this aspect of his Presidency also marked his contrast with establishment figures such as Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. They focussed on Latino small-business owners, who are certainly important, given that they make up one of the fastest growing segments of American business owners. But most Latinos, Aguilar noted, are employees, and it was meaningful to them that, under Trump—and before the pandemic—they enjoyed reduced rates of unemployment and poverty, increased rates of homeownership, and rising family median incomes.
To explain Trump’s appeal, Aguilar also pointed to his Administration’s support for religious liberty and the right to life. From early on in his Presidency, Trump made inroads with evangelical leaders, and during his four years in office he talked about the right to life, school choice, and prayer in schools. At a church in Miami, Trump said, “America was not built by religion-hating socialists” but, rather, “by churchgoing, God-worshiping, freedom-loving patriots.” There were also his Supreme Court picks, including, most recently, Amy Coney Barrett.
Most curiously, Aguilar named Donald Trump’s message of “true inclusion” as a third factor fuelling Latino support for the President. He said that Latinos thought, “You’re including me because you’re seeing me as an American—you’re not seeing me as a Hispanic that’s separate. Democrats just don’t understand this, because they follow the modern theories of all multiculturalism.” Aguilar added, “Well, to me, that’s not true inclusion—that’s separating people. That’s marginalizing people. I think President Trump made them feel like part of America.”
The truth is, of course, more complicated. As Betty Cárdenas, the national chairwoman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, said, the Hispanics she talked with in the Rio Grande Valley emphasized their Hispanic identity first, as part of their American identity. They didn’t want to be absorbed into the American melting pot but, rather, preferred to hang on to their unique Hispanic culture.


newyorker--2020-12-29--The Trümperdämmerung Is a Fitting End to 2020

But , of course , the President did not , and he will not .
He continues to refuse to accept his defeat in the election , and just the other day he retweeted a claim that “ treason ” kept him from winning .
Injecting still more political drama into the most ministerial of constitutional processes , Trump and his most fanatical supporters now want Congress to refuse to confirm Joe Biden ’ s Electoral College win on January 6th—which is both pointless , in that it will not happen , and incredibly destructive .
Meanwhile , more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus just since the election , and only two million Americans—not the hundred million he once promised—have so far received the vaccine .
The Trümperdämmerung is finally here , and it is every bit the raging dumpster fire that we , the unlucky audience for this drama , have come to expect .
Is there anyone left who is surprised that the President is careening through the last days of his Administration with a reckless disdain that simply has no precedent in American public life ?
Still , the hardest thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year that Donald Trump ’ s luck ran out but that with it the country ’ s did , too .
Sadly and yet inevitably , this terrible , wretchedly toxic year of pandemic death and economic distress , of partisan hatred and national protest , is the culmination of all that Trump has wrought and all that he is .
Now that 2020 is finally almost over , I find that I don ’ t want to remember it at all .
( Though you should read Lawrence Wright ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week ’ s New Yorker . )
Perhaps this is simply because Trump has remained so defiantly and obnoxiously unrepentant , continuing his antics all the way to the end .
He does not want to let go , to cede the spotlight , to renounce his outsized claim on our collective consciousness .
It is my protest , our protest , to want so desperately to do so .
As it is , we are still in 2020 , and I can barely summon the concerns and controversies of a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question in Washington was whether Trump ’ s former national-security adviser John Bolton would have to testify in the impeachment trial of the President .
( Spoiler alert : he didn ’ t , though he would eventually call Trump unfit for office in a book whose contents he did not share with the United States Senate and the American public when it mattered most . )
Now that the election and all the other mayhem associated with it have happened , it ’ s hard to recall that 2020 began with me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the upcoming Democratic primaries , and pondering why the promising Presidential campaign of Kamala Harris had flamed out so quickly , before a single vote was cast .
This was back when Trumpian outrages seemed less threatening to the literal health of the nation .
How much worse was 2020 ?
Well , NBC ’ s list of the President ’ s ten biggest lies in 2019 included Trump perennials like the idea that windmills , because of their noise , “ cause cancer , ” and “ people are flushing toilets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the U.S. will “ be going to Mars very soon.
” All are bad , absurd , and embarrassing coming from a President , but would not even rate in this year ’ s far deadlier , more consequential tally .
Trump was not just a circus this year ; he was an actual catastrophe .
Which is why the before times are so hard to conjure now , nine months into the pandemic and nearly two months after an election whose aftermath has challenged the very foundation of American democracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump ’ s State of the Union speech , and the drama of Mitt Romney becoming the only senator in history to vote to convict an impeached President of his own party .
I can recall , sort of , the anxiety that followed the U.S. assassination of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qassem Suleimani , and the drama of Biden ’ s remarkable comeback in the Democratic Presidential race .
In reality , though , the year really began for me , for us , in February—on February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump tweeted , “ The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.
” We already knew that this wasn ’ t true .
I had spent the previous weekend haranguing my visiting parents about the virus and begging them to purchase N95 masks before it was too late .
But somehow I did not fully recognize until that moment that Trump was going to approach the biggest public-health emergency of our lifetimes with a strategy of outright denial .
The Big Lie of 2020 had begun .
So many more followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the breathtaking simplicity of this first untruth , the foundational lie from which so many deadly consequences would flow .
“ Just stay calm .
It will go away , ” Trump said on March 10th , when thirty-one Americans were dead .
“ It ’ s going to go away , ” he said on August 31st , by which point nearly two hundred thousand had died .
“ It ’ s going to disappear , ” he said on October 10th .
“ It is disappearing.
” He said that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern over it was a Democratic hoax , that he knew how to treat it better than the doctors did , that it was just like the flu , and that , if you got it , you would get better , as he eventually did in October .
“ That ’ s all I hear about now .
.
.
.
COVID , COVID , COVID , COVID , ” he said before the election .
“ By the way , on November 4th , you won ’ t hear about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true , either , and , since then , millions of Americans have been infected with the disease , and December has been by far our deadliest month yet .
To be sure , there are many , many other Trumpisms from 2020 that would have been mind-blowing in another context , in any other year .
That ’ s the thing about historic , world-changing times ; so much happens that you can ’ t remember it all .
Still , I am quite certain that , even amid the firehose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American History and the Worst Debate in American History and the Worst Case of Sore-Loserism in American History will rate a mention .
Thinking back through the year , I realize , too , that there is much that we will not only forget but may not even believe actually happened .
Trump pressing his Attorney General to prosecute his opponent weeks before the election ?
Trump holding rallies with thousands of unmasked followers during a deadly pandemic , including a superspreader White House event at which he introduced a Supreme Court nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Trump was defeated ?
“ Person , woman , man , camera , TV ” ?
“ Obamagate , ” which was supposedly “ the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA ” ?
It ’ s just all too insane .
When I Googled “ craziest shit Trump did in 2020 , ” a column I wrote in September , on “ Twenty Other Disturbing , Awful Things That Trump Has Said This Month , ” popped up .
Although it was published just a few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not remember many of the examples cited in it—the “ super-duper ” new “ hydrosonic ” missile that does not actually exist ; Trump ’ s accusation that Biden got a “ big fat shot in the ass ” of some unknown drug ; Trump ’ s admission that he was getting his information about the uselessness of mask-wearing from “ waiters.
” This , as George W. Bush was reported to have said about Trump ’ s ominous Inaugural Address , was some weird shit indeed .
Remembering all of this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still much more to learn about the disastrous events of the past four years in Trump ’ s Washington and on his watch .
But I recognize that there are powerful forces—in human nature , in the politics of both the right and the left—that will push us toward forgetting .
The urge to move on from Trump is understandable , and potentially very , very dangerous .
As of noon on January 20th , no matter what other madness comes between now and then , America will start to move on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I read this year—and I read many , stuck at home during 2020 ’ s endless quarantine—the one that resonated perhaps the most was “ Those Who Forget , ” an account by the French-German author Géraldine Schwarz of postwar Europe ’ s , and her own family ’ s , not entirely successful effort to reckon with the crimes of the Second World War .
It made the very convincing case that , until and unless there is a full accounting for what happened with Donald Trump , 2020 is not over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t want to remember , but I know that forgetting is not an option , either .
Read More About the Presidential Transition • Donald Trump has survived impeachment , twenty-six sexual-misconduct accusations , and thousands of lawsuits .
His luck may well end now that Joe Biden is the next President .
• With litigation unlikely to change the outcome of the election , Republicans are looking to strategies that might remain even after rebuffs both at the polls and in court .
• With the Trump Presidency ending , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent the moral injuries of the past four years from happening again .
• If 2020 has demonstrated anything , it is the need to rebalance the economy to benefit the working class .
There are many ways a Biden Administration can start .
• Trump is being forced to give up his attempt to overturn the election .
But his efforts to build an alternative reality around himself will continue .
• Sign up for our daily newsletter for insight and analysis from our reporters and columnists .

As the awful year of 2020 and the awful tenure of Donald Trump both come to an end, the President has partied with the unmasked in Palm Beach and taken credit for a vaccine against a virus that he once counselled could be beaten with bleach. He has pardoned mercenary child-killers and Paul Manafort. He has golfed. He has raged. He has vetoed the annual defense bill and threatened to shut down the government over the holidays. He has turned against even some of his most loyal henchmen, and some, in turn, have finally flipped on him. “Mr. President . . . STOP THE INSANITY,” the New York Post blared on Monday, after four years of relentless cheerleading.
But, of course, the President did not, and he will not. He continues to refuse to accept his defeat in the election, and just the other day he retweeted a claim that “treason” kept him from winning. Injecting still more political drama into the most ministerial of constitutional processes, Trump and his most fanatical supporters now want Congress to refuse to confirm Joe Biden’s Electoral College win on January 6th—which is both pointless, in that it will not happen, and incredibly destructive. Meanwhile, more than a hundred thousand Americans have died of the coronavirus just since the election, and only two million Americans—not the hundred million he once promised—have so far received the vaccine.
Sign Up Receive updates from Susan B. Glasser in your in-box.
The Trümperdämmerung is finally here, and it is every bit the raging dumpster fire that we, the unlucky audience for this drama, have come to expect. Is there anyone left who is surprised that the President is careening through the last days of his Administration with a reckless disdain that simply has no precedent in American public life? Still, the hardest thing to accept is that 2020 is not merely the year that Donald Trump’s luck ran out but that with it the country’s did, too. Sadly and yet inevitably, this terrible, wretchedly toxic year of pandemic death and economic distress, of partisan hatred and national protest, is the culmination of all that Trump has wrought and all that he is.
Now that 2020 is finally almost over, I find that I don’t want to remember it at all. (Though you should read Lawrence Wright’s definitive account of this Plague Year in this week’s New Yorker.) Perhaps this is simply because Trump has remained so defiantly and obnoxiously unrepentant, continuing his antics all the way to the end. He does not want to let go, to cede the spotlight, to renounce his outsized claim on our collective consciousness. It is my protest, our protest, to want so desperately to do so.
As it is, we are still in 2020, and I can barely summon the concerns and controversies of a year ago, when the most pressing political question in Washington was whether Trump’s former national-security adviser John Bolton would have to testify in the impeachment trial of the President. (Spoiler alert: he didn’t, though he would eventually call Trump unfit for office in a book whose contents he did not share with the United States Senate and the American public when it mattered most.) Now that the election and all the other mayhem associated with it have happened, it’s hard to recall that 2020 began with me wondering whether Biden still had a chance in the upcoming Democratic primaries, and pondering why the promising Presidential campaign of Kamala Harris had flamed out so quickly, before a single vote was cast. This was back when Trumpian outrages seemed less threatening to the literal health of the nation.
How much worse was 2020? Well, NBC’s list of the President’s ten biggest lies in 2019 included Trump perennials like the idea that windmills, because of their noise, “cause cancer,” and “people are flushing toilets ten times, fifteen times,” and the U.S. will “be going to Mars very soon.” All are bad, absurd, and embarrassing coming from a President, but would not even rate in this year’s far deadlier, more consequential tally. Trump was not just a circus this year; he was an actual catastrophe.
Which is why the before times are so hard to conjure now, nine months into the pandemic and nearly two months after an election whose aftermath has challenged the very foundation of American democracy. I can remember, sort of, Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump’s State of the Union speech, and the drama of Mitt Romney becoming the only senator in history to vote to convict an impeached President of his own party. I can recall, sort of, the anxiety that followed the U.S. assassination of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qassem Suleimani, and the drama of Biden’s remarkable comeback in the Democratic Presidential race.
In reality, though, the year really began for me, for us, in February—on February 24th, to be precise, when Trump tweeted, “The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.” We already knew that this wasn’t true. I had spent the previous weekend haranguing my visiting parents about the virus and begging them to purchase N95 masks before it was too late. But somehow I did not fully recognize until that moment that Trump was going to approach the biggest public-health emergency of our lifetimes with a strategy of outright denial. The Big Lie of 2020 had begun. So many more followed that it’s hard to remember the breathtaking simplicity of this first untruth, the foundational lie from which so many deadly consequences would flow.
“Just stay calm. It will go away,” Trump said on March 10th, when thirty-one Americans were dead. “It’s going to go away,” he said on August 31st, by which point nearly two hundred thousand had died. “It’s going to disappear,” he said on October 10th. “It is disappearing.” He said that the coronavirus was a Chinese plot and that concern over it was a Democratic hoax, that he knew how to treat it better than the doctors did, that it was just like the flu, and that, if you got it, you would get better, as he eventually did in October. “That’s all I hear about now. . . . COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID,” he said before the election. “By the way, on November 4th, you won’t hear about it anymore.” But that wasn’t true, either, and, since then, millions of Americans have been infected with the disease, and December has been by far our deadliest month yet.


newyorker--2020-12-29--The Next Big Challenge: Trump-Proofing the Presidency

Trump ’ s departure will prompt cries of relief in many parts of the country , but there is now vital work to be done .
The past four years have taught us that the American system of government is no match for a President who , like Trump , will not hesitate to break long-established rules and norms .
During his four years in office , the forty-fifth President has lied on a daily basis ; purged officials who challenged him ; used his vast social-media following to intimidate other elected Republicans ; charged the federal government millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses ; awarded prominent positions to his family members ; pardoned some of his closest political allies ; and , finally , tried to overturn a perfectly legitimate election .
Conceivably , he could run for office again in four years .
What can be done to Trump-proof the Presidency against him or an acolyte ?
One seemingly obvious reform is to change the voting system to prevent another demagogue from taking power despite losing the popular vote .
But , in this area , as in others , the U.S. Constitution is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eric Hobsbawm noted almost twenty years ago , the United States is trapped in “ the straitjacket of an eighteenth-century constitution reinforced by two centuries of Talmudic exegesis by the lawyers.
” Getting rid of the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment , which , in turn , would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate , plus ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures .
Given the red-blue divide , that ’ s not going to happen anytime soon .
One way to circumvent the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact , under which they would agree to award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide .
To date , fifteen states and the District of Columbia have signed on ; together , they have a hundred and ninety-six votes in the Electoral College .
Once the adherents to the compact had two hundred and seventy votes among them , they could guarantee that the winner of the popular vote would be elected , say supporters of the compact .
Rick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longtime advocate of the compact , called the current system absurdly antiquated in an e-mail on Monday .
“ I mean , the total population of the entire United States when the constitution was adopted was less than 4 million .
Now , twenty-seven states are individually more populous than that.
” Another reform consistent with retaining the Electoral College would be adopting ranked-choice voting , which is already being used in Maine and Alaska , as well as in places like Ireland and New Zealand .
Under this system , voters would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order .
“ It means that voters can go for the Green Party but if no candidate has 50 percent majority on first count , then their votes transfer until someone does , ” Jeff Colgan , a political scientist at Brown , told me in an e-mail .
If this system had been in effect in 2016 , Hillary Clinton might have won some states where Jill Stein got a lot of votes .
( For this to happen , many Stein voters would have had to list Clinton as their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting system were retooled , however , that wouldn ’ t preclude the election of a demagogue who was more popular than Trump .
So , whatever voting system we use , it ’ s imperative that we strengthen other types of defenses against an authoritarian leader , and , here again , there are a number of options available .
To begin with , it ’ s vital to insure that no future President can get away with refusing to release their tax returns , which contain information about their financial obligations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Until September , 2020 , when the Times published an analysis of more than two decades of Trump ’ s tax data , which it had obtained , he had successfully hidden from voters the fact that , in the decade before he ran for office , he paid virtually nothing in federal income tax , partly because he secured a refund of $ 72.9 million in 2010 , and that he had personally guaranteed more than three hundred million dollars of loans that will come due in the next four years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump violated a Presidential norm that was established relatively recently .
Richard Nixon instituted it in 1973 , at the height of Watergate .
“ People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook .
Well , I am not a crook , ” Nixon famously said .
In the wake of Trump , statutory requirements are in order .
David Cay Johnston , an investigative journalist who has written widely on Trump and his finances , thinks that Congress should amend the U.S. tax code to require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six years of tax returns and other tax information , including the returns for any majority-owned businesses , of anyone who files to run for President .
“ We may not be able to require a president to release his or her tax returns as a condition of taking office , but we can shift the duty to the IRS , ” Johnston , who is now working on a third Trump book , wrote to me .
Another area that requires immediate congressional action is the ethics laws that are meant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Currently , these statutes contain a huge loophole for the President and Vice-President—which Trump exploited when , on taking office , he refused to give up ownership of any of his businesses , including a new Trump International Hotel situated just a few blocks from the White House .
Since then , the hotel has become a meeting spot for diplomats , lobbyists , and others seeking to ingratiate themselves with the President .
In violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution , arguably , it has accepted payments from foreign governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington published an ethics-reform plan that could serve as the basis for future action .
It called on Congress to create a legal requirement for the incoming President and Vice-President to divest any assets that created a potential conflict of interest .
The group also proposed legislation that would mandate additional financial disclosures from Presidents and Vice-Presidents , limit contributions to Presidential Inaugurations and future Presidential libraries , strengthen existing anti-nepotism statutes , and require the full and prompt disclosure of White House visitor logs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t just gaps in the ethics laws : it ’ s that existing statutes haven ’ t been properly enforced .
A prime example is the Hatch Act of 1939 , which bars federal employees , excepting only the President and Vice-President , from engaging in partisan politics , and prohibits the use of federal funds for political purposes .
In June , 2019 , the Office of Special Counsel , an independent federal agency that is supposed to insure compliance with the Hatch Act , recommended that Kellyanne Conway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because she had violated the statute on numerous occasions .
Trump and Conway ignored the O.S.C.
’ s recommendation .
“ When we used to film George W. Bush , we had to go to all sorts of lengths to avoid breaking the law , ” Stuart Stevens , a veteran Republican political consultant turned Never Trumper , told me .
He said that the Trump Administration had brazenly conducted campaign “ events using official government employees and official government sites .
These are taxpayer-funded events.
” But the O.S.C.
’ s powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Hatch Act breaches : generally , the President is the only one who can terminate political appointees who violate the law .
To give the ethics laws and guidelines more teeth , a more powerful enforcer is urgently needed .
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said that this could be accomplished by “ creating an overarching inspector general ’ s office to investigate potential ethic violations across the executive branch ” or by giving an existing oversight agency , the Office of Government Ethics , some proper enforcement powers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refer egregious violations to federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia for civil or criminal investigation .
Before Trump was inaugurated , the man who was then the head of the Office of Government Ethics , Walter Shaub , called on him to divest his businesses .
Trump simply ignored Shaub , who subsequently resigned .

With just three weeks left until the Inauguration of Joe Biden, the end of Donald Trump’s Presidency is firmly in sight. Trump, despite having finally backed down and signed the COVID-19 relief bill, will surely look to cause more mayhem before he leaves office. Over the weekend, he urged his followers, via Twitter, to protest in Washington on January 6th, the day that the new Congress is scheduled to ratify the results of the Electoral College.
Trump’s departure will prompt cries of relief in many parts of the country, but there is now vital work to be done. The past four years have taught us that the American system of government is no match for a President who, like Trump, will not hesitate to break long-established rules and norms. During his four years in office, the forty-fifth President has lied on a daily basis; purged officials who challenged him; used his vast social-media following to intimidate other elected Republicans; charged the federal government millions of dollars for the use of his private businesses; awarded prominent positions to his family members; pardoned some of his closest political allies; and, finally, tried to overturn a perfectly legitimate election. Conceivably, he could run for office again in four years. What can be done to Trump-proof the Presidency against him or an acolyte?
One seemingly obvious reform is to change the voting system to prevent another demagogue from taking power despite losing the popular vote. But, in this area, as in others, the U.S. Constitution is a huge barrier. As the historian Eric Hobsbawm noted almost twenty years ago, the United States is trapped in “the straitjacket of an eighteenth-century constitution reinforced by two centuries of Talmudic exegesis by the lawyers.” Getting rid of the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, which, in turn, would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, plus ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. Given the red-blue divide, that’s not going to happen anytime soon.
One way to circumvent the Electoral College would be for more states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, under which they would agree to award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide. To date, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have signed on; together, they have a hundred and ninety-six votes in the Electoral College. Once the adherents to the compact had two hundred and seventy votes among them, they could guarantee that the winner of the popular vote would be elected, say supporters of the compact. Rick Hertzberg, my former colleague and a longtime advocate of the compact, called the current system absurdly antiquated in an e-mail on Monday. “I mean, the total population of the entire United States when the constitution was adopted was less than 4 million. Now, twenty-seven states are individually more populous than that.”
Another reform consistent with retaining the Electoral College would be adopting ranked-choice voting, which is already being used in Maine and Alaska, as well as in places like Ireland and New Zealand. Under this system, voters would be asked to list their preferred candidates in order. “It means that voters can go for the Green Party but if no candidate has 50 percent majority on first count, then their votes transfer until someone does,” Jeff Colgan, a political scientist at Brown, told me in an e-mail. If this system had been in effect in 2016, Hillary Clinton might have won some states where Jill Stein got a lot of votes. (For this to happen, many Stein voters would have had to list Clinton as their second preference.)
Even if the voting system were retooled, however, that wouldn’t preclude the election of a demagogue who was more popular than Trump. So, whatever voting system we use, it’s imperative that we strengthen other types of defenses against an authoritarian leader, and, here again, there are a number of options available. To begin with, it’s vital to insure that no future President can get away with refusing to release their tax returns, which contain information about their financial obligations and other potential conflicts of interest. Until September, 2020, when the Times published an analysis of more than two decades of Trump’s tax data, which it had obtained, he had successfully hidden from voters the fact that, in the decade before he ran for office, he paid virtually nothing in federal income tax, partly because he secured a refund of $72.9 million in 2010, and that he had personally guaranteed more than three hundred million dollars of loans that will come due in the next four years.
By refusing to release his tax returns, Trump violated a Presidential norm that was established relatively recently. Richard Nixon instituted it in 1973, at the height of Watergate. “People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook,” Nixon famously said. In the wake of Trump, statutory requirements are in order. David Cay Johnston, an investigative journalist who has written widely on Trump and his finances, thinks that Congress should amend the U.S. tax code to require the Internal Revenue Service to make public six years of tax returns and other tax information, including the returns for any majority-owned businesses, of anyone who files to run for President. “We may not be able to require a president to release his or her tax returns as a condition of taking office, but we can shift the duty to the IRS,” Johnston, who is now working on a third Trump book, wrote to me.
Another area that requires immediate congressional action is the ethics laws that are meant to deal with potential conflicts of interest. Currently, these statutes contain a huge loophole for the President and Vice-President—which Trump exploited when, on taking office, he refused to give up ownership of any of his businesses, including a new Trump International Hotel situated just a few blocks from the White House. Since then, the hotel has become a meeting spot for diplomats, lobbyists, and others seeking to ingratiate themselves with the President. In violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, arguably, it has accepted payments from foreign governments.
Back in 2018, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington published an ethics-reform plan that could serve as the basis for future action. It called on Congress to create a legal requirement for the incoming President and Vice-President to divest any assets that created a potential conflict of interest. The group also proposed legislation that would mandate additional financial disclosures from Presidents and Vice-Presidents, limit contributions to Presidential Inaugurations and future Presidential libraries, strengthen existing anti-nepotism statutes, and require the full and prompt disclosure of White House visitor logs.
The group also noted that the problem isn’t just gaps in the ethics laws: it’s that existing statutes haven’t been properly enforced. A prime example is the Hatch Act of 1939, which bars federal employees, excepting only the President and Vice-President, from engaging in partisan politics, and prohibits the use of federal funds for political purposes. In June, 2019, the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency that is supposed to insure compliance with the Hatch Act, recommended that Kellyanne Conway, a White House adviser, be fired because she had violated the statute on numerous occasions. Trump and Conway ignored the O.S.C.’s recommendation. “When we used to film George W. Bush, we had to go to all sorts of lengths to avoid breaking the law,” Stuart Stevens, a veteran Republican political consultant turned Never Trumper, told me. He said that the Trump Administration had brazenly conducted campaign “events using official government employees and official government sites. These are taxpayer-funded events.”


newyorker--2020-12-29--The Year in New Yorker Interactive Storytelling

“ In the fourteen billion years between the big bang and the autumn of 1957 , space was pristine , ” Khatchadourian writes .
Now , however , there are millions of human artifacts orbiting the Earth ; “ we live , ” he observes , “ in a corona of trash.
” If not addressed , high-speed collisions caused by this pollution could mean catastrophe for satellites , and might prohibit our use of near-Earth space .
Readers moving through this feature float in a starry sky , periodically encountering bits of junk , as well as video of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and stave off disaster .
Visual and interactive storytelling also put more immediate matters into context this year .
Early in the summer , during the historic protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd , Nelson painted a powerful cover for our June 22nd issue .
In “ Say Their Names , ” Floyd embodies America ’ s long history of anti-Black violence .
A reader examining the painting encounters other Black victims of racism and police brutality , learning about the circumstances of their deaths and the often negligible consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christiane Amanpour , the cover is “ a memorial of sorts , and a history lesson.
” As the coronavirus pandemic peaked in New York City during the spring , The New Yorker embarked on one of the most ambitious multimedia collaborations in its history .
For “ April 15 , 2020 : A Coronavirus Chronicle , ” nearly fifty writers and photographers spread out across the five boroughs to document twenty-four hours in what was then the epicenter of the pandemic .
The story weaves together scenes of doctors and nurses tending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his shift at a fulfillment center ; a restaurateur preparing takeout orders ; a woman delivering her son , Christopher , via C-section ; and dozens more New Yorkers coping with their new reality .
As the reader moves through each vignette , the progression of the day is reflected in the article ’ s visual presentation .
The background color shifts by the hour , from the darkness of midnight to the golden hues of daylight , on through sunset and the radiant city lights of the night .
The accompanying photography @ @ @ @ @ @ @ composition , and vibrancy—bear witness to the suffering and resiliency of a city in crisis .

September 28, 2020 The Elusive Peril of Space Junk
By Raffi Khatchadourian
“In the fourteen billion years between the big bang and the autumn of 1957, space was pristine,” Khatchadourian writes. Now, however, there are millions of human artifacts orbiting the Earth; “we live,” he observes, “in a corona of trash.” If not addressed, high-speed collisions caused by this pollution could mean catastrophe for satellites, and might prohibit our use of near-Earth space. Readers moving through this feature float in a starry sky, periodically encountering bits of junk, as well as video of the technology being designed to retrieve debris and stave off disaster.
June 22, 2020 “Say Their Names”
By Kadir Nelson
Visual and interactive storytelling also put more immediate matters into context this year. Early in the summer, during the historic protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd, Nelson painted a powerful cover for our June 22nd issue. In “Say Their Names,” Floyd embodies America’s long history of anti-Black violence. A reader examining the painting encounters other Black victims of racism and police brutality, learning about the circumstances of their deaths and the often negligible consequences for their attackers. As Nelson told Christiane Amanpour, the cover is “a memorial of sorts, and a history lesson.”
April 27, 2020 April 15, 2020: A Coronavirus Chronicle
Twenty-four hours at the epicenter of the pandemic.
As the coronavirus pandemic peaked in New York City during the spring, The New Yorker embarked on one of the most ambitious multimedia collaborations in its history. For “April 15, 2020: A Coronavirus Chronicle,” nearly fifty writers and photographers spread out across the five boroughs to document twenty-four hours in what was then the epicenter of the pandemic. The story weaves together scenes of doctors and nurses tending to patients; a worker arriving for his shift at a fulfillment center; a restaurateur preparing takeout orders; a woman delivering her son, Christopher, via C-section; and dozens more New Yorkers coping with their new reality. As the reader moves through each vignette, the progression of the day is reflected in the article’s visual presentation. The background color shifts by the hour, from the darkness of midnight to the golden hues of daylight, on through sunset and the radiant city lights of the night. The accompanying photography and video—in their breadth of style, composition, and vibrancy—bear witness to the suffering and resiliency of a city in crisis.