csmonitor--2020-10-30--Why Midwest farmers are sticking with Trump

But there are other reasons why farmers back Mr. Trump and are wary of his challenger ’ s agenda .
Brigette Leach , a vegetable farmer in Michigan , worries about the Democrats ’ Green New Deal proposals .
“ Anything that looks or sounds like the Green New Deal – I see nothing in any of it that bodes well for agriculture , ” she says .
The Trump administration has also ensured that a generous amount of federal aid flows to farmers whose exports have suffered .
Last year payments from the federal government made up an estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans can count on Terry Hock ’ s vote .
He ’ s a Wisconsin dairy farmer who applauds President Trump for standing up to China .
“ He ’ s the only one that ever stood up against it , or any foreign country , ” he says .
“ I also like the fact that he ’ s a businessman.
” Yet in Wisconsin , a battleground state in next week ’ s election , farmers remain among the president ’ s strongest supporters , just as they are in states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers are modest – farmers make up 9 % of eligible voters in Wisconsin – their votes are eagerly courted by Republican campaigners seeking to offset their expected losses in suburban districts .
It ’ s been a tough few years for farmers .
Milk and livestock spoiled or went unsold during the initial pandemic lockdowns .
And President Donald Trump ’ s bruising trade wars have led to retaliatory tariffs and bans on U.S. agricultural exports .
In the war of signage , there ’ s no contest along the back roads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last standing corn and flocks of geese crease the gray sky , the countryside blossoms with blue “ Trump Pence 2020 ” signs that promise to “ Keep America Great.
” Farming has been less than great in recent years .
Buffeted by trade wars and the disruptions of COVID-19 , many crop and livestock farmers have struggled .
Last spring , dairy farmers dumped milk they could not sell ; pig farmers couldn ’ t send their animals to market .
And many farmers have gone out of business , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dairy farms continues to fall and the good years are distinguished from the bad only by the rate of decline .
Still , for all the difficulties of the Trump era , farmers remain among the president ’ s staunchest supporters , reflecting both Republican leanings in general in rural America and support among farmers in particular for President Donald Trump ’ s stances on deregulation , trade , and related issues .
In battleground states like Wisconsin , Michigan , and Ohio , farmers are a demographic that still matters , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Trump ’ s path to winning a second term .
( In Wisconsin , Democratic challenger Joe Biden has maintained a steady polling lead , with the Real Clear Politics rolling average showing him up 6 percentage points . )
President Trump “ is finally standing up to China , ” says Terry Hock , a dairy farmer in Outagamie County , about 10 miles west of Green Bay .
Mr. Hock was steering a mini loader across his barnyard on a recent morning when he stopped to talk about the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one that ever stood up against it , or any foreign country , ” he says .
“ I also like the fact that he ’ s a businessman.
” Then there are the payments .
Under Mr. Trump , the federal government made unprecedented extra outlays to farmers – $ 19.3 billion in total in 2018 and 2019 – to soften the blow from foreign tariffs on agricultural exports .
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the government subsidized 40 % of farmers ’ incomes last year .
Farmers also got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , designed to shore up an economy battered by the pandemic .
In Wisconsin , more than 15,000 farmers received payments averaging $ 3,300 apiece , according to the state ’ s Department of Revenue .
“ We took a little hit in March when this pandemic hit , but we ’ re back , ” says Mr. Hock , who has 75 cows .
“ I ’ m doing good.
” As a group , farmers are reliably conservative voters , and the ups and downs of the Trump years haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is little evidence of a farm revolt against Mr. Trump , ” writes Charles Franklin , director of the Marquette University Law School Poll , in a recent report on Wisconsin .
“ Farmers are much more Republican than non-farmers , so most support Trump , ” he writes .
Duane Stateler , who raises pigs in east-central Ohio , says he has no misgivings about voting again for the president .
“ I think by far the farmers in my local area and across the state are for a continuation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stateler , who sends 16,000 pigs to market each year .
In 2019 , pork producers suffered when China , the world ’ s largest pork consumer , temporarily stopped buying American pork in retaliation against U.S. tariffs .
Then COVID-19 forced the shutdown of some meat plants .
“ We had gotten through the trade crisis and things were starting to rebound , ” Mr. Stateler says .
“ There was still optimism , just as the shutdown happened.
” In the end , however , pork exports rose 9 % in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined other pork producers at the White House for the signing of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement , which should help both hog and dairy exporters .
When COVID-19 hit , Mr. Stateler cut back on protein in his hogs ’ feed so they wouldn ’ t gain weight , buying him time until demand recovered .
And even though Mr. Stateler had a close friend hospitalized for COVID-19 , he doesn ’ t fault Mr. Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic .
“ I don ’ t think anybody could have done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You can not blame this on one person.
” Brigette Leach , a farmer in Climax , Michigan , another battleground state , says she also will vote for Mr. Trump , citing his rollback of environmental and other regulations .
“ I wish sometimes he didn ’ t tweet quite as much , ” she says .
“ But on the other hand , that ’ s almost inconsequential.
” Ms. Leach , who with her husband grows vegetables for direct sale to consumers and restaurants , is a regional board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In meetings , when farmers are asked “ What keeps you up at night ?
” their top response is usually regulation .
“ The food safety regulations are a bit burdensome , ” she says .
“ If [ our operations ] get much bigger , they become more burdensome and more costly.
” Like other farmers , she is wary of the influence of Green New Deal proponents in a Biden administration , though Mr. Biden has disavowed the plan .
“ Anything that looks or sounds like the Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it that bodes well for agriculture , ” Ms. Leach says .
Not all farmers are standing with Mr. Trump , of course .
“ I ’ ve been opposed to Trump from the very beginning , ” says Jacob Rieke , a hog farmer in Fairfax , Minnesota .
“ I ’ ve always seen him as a terrible person .
I think he ’ s done a terrible job for farmers.
” But some who reject Mr. Trump still aren ’ t prepared to embrace Mr. Biden .
Dan Diederich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wisconsin , says he plans to vote for the Libertarian candidate , Jo Jorgensen .
Standing in a muddy pasture , with sandhill cranes bugling in the distance , Mr. Diederich expressed skepticism about Mr. Trump ’ s trade policies .
“ My gut feeling is that we are worse off , ” he says .
“ But somebody needs to stand up to China .
We had Obama as president for eight years .
Did he go after China ?
No .
It got worse .
I believe wholeheartedly that Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservationist – he plants cover crops widely and thinks more should be done against climate change – Mr. Diederich prefers government incentives over regulations to achieve environmental goals .
“ The Democrats made a lot of noise in the last few years with their environmental talk that farmers don ’ t like , ” he says .
Jerry Biese , who farms in Outagamie County , says he worries about trade wars and dislikes Mr. Trump ’ s manner .
“ I think he should wait before he voices his opinion , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s policies have pleased him .
“ They ’ re trying to bring jobs back to the United States.
” Still , Mr. Biese is a realist .
Farmers represent a shrinking group – just 9 % of Wisconsin voters – and he knows firsthand some of the anti-Trump feeling in the state .
“ I have a daughter-in-law , if you say ‘ Trump ’ to her , the hair just stands up on the back of her neck , ” he says .
“ I have a granddaughter the same way.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Mr. Biese , perched on his tractor with his hood up against a north wind .
“ But in my opinion , I don ’ t think he will .
”

But there are other reasons why farmers back Mr. Trump and are wary of his challenger’s agenda. Brigette Leach, a vegetable farmer in Michigan, worries about the Democrats’ Green New Deal proposals. “Anything that looks or sounds like the Green New Deal – I see nothing in any of it that bodes well for agriculture,” she says.
The Trump administration has also ensured that a generous amount of federal aid flows to farmers whose exports have suffered. Last year payments from the federal government made up an estimated 40% of farmers’ incomes.
Republicans can count on Terry Hock’s vote. He’s a Wisconsin dairy farmer who applauds President Trump for standing up to China. “He’s the only one that ever stood up against it, or any foreign country,” he says. “I also like the fact that he’s a businessman.”
Farmers are an important rural constituency, whose support for President Trump has held up despite his trade wars that dented exports.
Yet in Wisconsin, a battleground state in next week’s election, farmers remain among the president’s strongest supporters, just as they are in states like Ohio and Michigan. While their numbers are modest – farmers make up 9% of eligible voters in Wisconsin – their votes are eagerly courted by Republican campaigners seeking to offset their expected losses in suburban districts.
It’s been a tough few years for farmers. Milk and livestock spoiled or went unsold during the initial pandemic lockdowns. And President Donald Trump’s bruising trade wars have led to retaliatory tariffs and bans on U.S. agricultural exports.
In the war of signage, there’s no contest along the back roads of Wisconsin. As combines cut down the last standing corn and flocks of geese crease the gray sky, the countryside blossoms with blue “Trump Pence 2020” signs that promise to “Keep America Great.”
Farming has been less than great in recent years. Buffeted by trade wars and the disruptions of COVID-19, many crop and livestock farmers have struggled.
Last spring, dairy farmers dumped milk they could not sell; pig farmers couldn’t send their animals to market. And many farmers have gone out of business, especially in Wisconsin, where the number of dairy farms continues to fall and the good years are distinguished from the bad only by the rate of decline.
Why We Wrote This Farmers are an important rural constituency, whose support for President Trump has held up despite his trade wars that dented exports.
Still, for all the difficulties of the Trump era, farmers remain among the president’s staunchest supporters, reflecting both Republican leanings in general in rural America and support among farmers in particular for President Donald Trump’s stances on deregulation, trade, and related issues. In battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio, farmers are a demographic that still matters, even as the broader tide has turned against Mr. Trump’s path to winning a second term. (In Wisconsin, Democratic challenger Joe Biden has maintained a steady polling lead, with the Real Clear Politics rolling average showing him up 6 percentage points.)
President Trump “is finally standing up to China,” says Terry Hock, a dairy farmer in Outagamie County, about 10 miles west of Green Bay. Mr. Hock was steering a mini loader across his barnyard on a recent morning when he stopped to talk about the election. “He’s the only one that ever stood up against it, or any foreign country,” he says. “I also like the fact that he’s a businessman.”
Then there are the payments. Under Mr. Trump, the federal government made unprecedented extra outlays to farmers – $19.3 billion in total in 2018 and 2019 – to soften the blow from foreign tariffs on agricultural exports. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the government subsidized 40% of farmers’ incomes last year.
Richard Mertens View caption Hide caption Dairy farmer Terry Hock, shown in October on his farm near Green Bay, Wisconsin, is glad President Donald Trump has stood up to China.
Farmers also got big payments this year from the CARES Act, designed to shore up an economy battered by the pandemic. In Wisconsin, more than 15,000 farmers received payments averaging $3,300 apiece, according to the state’s Department of Revenue.
“We took a little hit in March when this pandemic hit, but we’re back,” says Mr. Hock, who has 75 cows. “I’m doing good.”
No misgivings
As a group, farmers are reliably conservative voters, and the ups and downs of the Trump years haven’t changed their politics. “There is little evidence of a farm revolt against Mr. Trump,” writes Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette University Law School Poll, in a recent report on Wisconsin. “Farmers are much more Republican than non-farmers, so most support Trump,” he writes.
Duane Stateler, who raises pigs in east-central Ohio, says he has no misgivings about voting again for the president.
“I think by far the farmers in my local area and across the state are for a continuation of the Trump administration,” says Mr. Stateler, who sends 16,000 pigs to market each year. In 2019, pork producers suffered when China, the world’s largest pork consumer, temporarily stopped buying American pork in retaliation against U.S. tariffs. Then COVID-19 forced the shutdown of some meat plants.
“We had gotten through the trade crisis and things were starting to rebound,” Mr. Stateler says. “There was still optimism, just as the shutdown happened.”
In the end, however, pork exports rose 9% in 2019. In January, Mr. Stateler joined other pork producers at the White House for the signing of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which should help both hog and dairy exporters.
When COVID-19 hit, Mr. Stateler cut back on protein in his hogs’ feed so they wouldn’t gain weight, buying him time until demand recovered. And even though Mr. Stateler had a close friend hospitalized for COVID-19, he doesn’t fault Mr. Trump’s handling of the pandemic.
“I don’t think anybody could have done anything different,” he says. “You cannot blame this on one person.”
Reducing “burdensome” regulations
Brigette Leach, a farmer in Climax, Michigan, another battleground state, says she also will vote for Mr. Trump, citing his rollback of environmental and other regulations.
“I wish sometimes he didn’t tweet quite as much,” she says. “But on the other hand, that’s almost inconsequential.”
Ms. Leach, who with her husband grows vegetables for direct sale to consumers and restaurants, is a regional board member of the Michigan Farm Bureau. In meetings, when farmers are asked “What keeps you up at night?” their top response is usually regulation.
“The food safety regulations are a bit burdensome,” she says. “If [our operations] get much bigger, they become more burdensome and more costly.”
Like other farmers, she is wary of the influence of Green New Deal proponents in a Biden administration, though Mr. Biden has disavowed the plan. “Anything that looks or sounds like the Green New Deal – I see nothing in any of it that bodes well for agriculture,” Ms. Leach says.
Not all farmers are standing with Mr. Trump, of course. “I’ve been opposed to Trump from the very beginning,” says Jacob Rieke, a hog farmer in Fairfax, Minnesota. “I’ve always seen him as a terrible person. I think he’s done a terrible job for farmers.”
Richard Mertens View caption Hide caption Farmer Jerry Biese in Outagamie County, Wisconsin, hopes President Donald Trump will win a second term, but he’s not confident of a Republican victory.
Voting Libertarian
But some who reject Mr. Trump still aren’t prepared to embrace Mr. Biden.
Dan Diederich, a dairy farmer near De Pere, Wisconsin, says he plans to vote for the Libertarian candidate, Jo Jorgensen. Standing in a muddy pasture, with sandhill cranes bugling in the distance, Mr. Diederich expressed skepticism about Mr. Trump’s trade policies. “My gut feeling is that we are worse off,” he says. “But somebody needs to stand up to China. We had Obama as president for eight years. Did he go after China? No. It got worse. I believe wholeheartedly that Biden will not confront China.”
A committed conservationist – he plants cover crops widely and thinks more should be done against climate change – Mr. Diederich prefers government incentives over regulations to achieve environmental goals.
“The Democrats made a lot of noise in the last few years with their environmental talk that farmers don’t like,” he says.
Jerry Biese, who farms in Outagamie County, says he worries about trade wars and dislikes Mr. Trump’s manner. “I think he should wait before he voices his opinion,” he says. But the administration’s policies have pleased him. “They’re trying to bring jobs back to the United States.”
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Still, Mr. Biese is a realist. Farmers represent a shrinking group – just 9% of Wisconsin voters – and he knows firsthand some of the anti-Trump feeling in the state. “I have a daughter-in-law, if you say ‘Trump’ to her, the hair just stands up on the back of her neck,” he says. “I have a granddaughter the same way.”
“I hope he does win,” says Mr. Biese, perched on his tractor with his hood up against a north wind. “But in my opinion, I don’t think he will.”


csmonitor--2020-10-31--Readers write: Love as justice, a wake-up call, seeing the world

Patricia Leigh Brown ’ s cover story “ New life for lifers ” in the Aug. 17 & 24 Monitor Weekly includes a photo of a parolee named Clinton Thomas .
Every time I see it I practically ache , for the obvious pain in his face .
In my volunteer work in prisons , I quickly came to realize why Christian Science churches generally have “ God is Love ” at the front of the sanctuary .
Since then I have always written “ God is Love ” on the board before we start our meetings , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is nothing at all you can ever do to either win God ’ s love or lose God ’ s love ; it ’ s always there for you .
And not only that , but even if you think you don ’ t know how to love God , that love for God is native to you ; it ’ s part of who you are .
Thank you so much for this wonderful article ; no sense of fear-based or vengeance-based justice should ever cause us to deprive anyone of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanks for the wonderful Aug. 3 Monitor Weekly issue about suffrage !
As a senior white woman , I have always considered myself to be accepting of all people , not prejudiced , but in my pleasant bubble , I haven ’ t realized how long and how persistent a problem equality has been for women , people of color , and immigrants in the United States .
I fault my education for pointing out all the statements of “ all created equal with equal rights ” but not exposing all the glaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
The suffrage issue was a wake-up call .
I always read the entire magazine , and I appreciate the paper Weekly for being something vital to read that is not on a screen .
I am a longtime fan and reader of the Monitor and the perspective it presents on global affairs and events .
The Monitor , in its multiple formats – including the paper magazine , the website , and the Politics and Weekender newsletters – has been my primary news source for many years .
I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , intellect , courage , honesty , and passion of the writers who share their stories with the world .
And the Monitor includes beautiful images from around the world that communicate the feel of the story and transport the reader to the people , homes , villages , streets , and schools where the stories emerged .
I will always remember the photo of the table of Swiss families sharing a meal with an Eritrean refugee in the Jan. 27 Monitor Weekly .
These stories and images are not available elsewhere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kindness , and exactness of the writing .
Each section is special , and I appreciate the introduction of writers such as Susan X Jane and Candace McDuffie .
Mary Beth McCauley ’ s Ten Commandments series was inspiring .
Thanks to Andrea King Collier for the article “ Anti-racism reading list : 10 books to get started ” in the July 6 & 13 Monitor Weekly .
Of course , the experienced voice of Ken Makin and his analysis and framing of the current struggle to overcome injustice , discrimination , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and moving .
I look forward to hearing more from these talented writers .

Love as justice
Patricia Leigh Brown’s cover story “New life for lifers” in the Aug. 17 & 24 Monitor Weekly includes a photo of a parolee named Clinton Thomas. Every time I see it I practically ache, for the obvious pain in his face.
In my volunteer work in prisons, I quickly came to realize why Christian Science churches generally have “God is Love” at the front of the sanctuary. Since then I have always written “God is Love” on the board before we start our meetings, and it is always our starting place: There is nothing at all you can ever do to either win God’s love or lose God’s love; it’s always there for you. And not only that, but even if you think you don’t know how to love God, that love for God is native to you; it’s part of who you are.
Thank you so much for this wonderful article; no sense of fear-based or vengeance-based justice should ever cause us to deprive anyone of the right to awaken to these facts.
Robin Smith
Denver
A wake-up call
Thanks for the wonderful Aug. 3 Monitor Weekly issue about suffrage! As a senior white woman, I have always considered myself to be accepting of all people, not prejudiced, but in my pleasant bubble, I haven’t realized how long and how persistent a problem equality has been for women, people of color, and immigrants in the United States.
I fault my education for pointing out all the statements of “all created equal with equal rights” but not exposing all the glaring inequalities, especially in some parts of the U.S. The suffrage issue was a wake-up call. I always read the entire magazine, and I appreciate the paper Weekly for being something vital to read that is not on a screen.
Anne Hughes
Agoura Hills, California
Seeing the world
I am a longtime fan and reader of the Monitor and the perspective it presents on global affairs and events. The Monitor, in its multiple formats – including the paper magazine, the website, and the Politics and Weekender newsletters – has been my primary news source for many years. I am very grateful for the dedication, time, intellect, courage, honesty, and passion of the writers who share their stories with the world.
And the Monitor includes beautiful images from around the world that communicate the feel of the story and transport the reader to the people, homes, villages, streets, and schools where the stories emerged. I will always remember the photo of the table of Swiss families sharing a meal with an Eritrean refugee in the Jan. 27 Monitor Weekly. These stories and images are not available elsewhere, nor is the care, compassion, kindness, and exactness of the writing.
Each section is special, and I appreciate the introduction of writers such as Susan X Jane and Candace McDuffie. Mary Beth McCauley’s Ten Commandments series was inspiring. Thanks to Andrea King Collier for the article “Anti-racism reading list: 10 books to get started” in the July 6 & 13 Monitor Weekly. Of course, the experienced voice of Ken Makin and his analysis and framing of the current struggle to overcome injustice, discrimination, and violence to Black Americans are highly valued and moving. I look forward to hearing more from these talented writers.
Marie Hegarty
Philadelphia


csmonitor--2020-11-01--Sean Connery: A legacy that defined masculinity in a bygone era

Writing an appreciation of Sean Connery feels inevitably inadequate compared to experiencing the real thing .
To glimpse his magnetism , you might turn to a photograph of him in a tailored suit , leaning against an Aston Martin .
You ’ d probably get more of his menacing charisma by pulling up the “ Chicago way ” scene from “ The Untouchables.
” It might be enough simply to say : The king is dead .
As a lion of movies for half a century , Connery ’ s talent was manifest .
He was famously cast as James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that obvious .
And from then on , in even the lesser films , Connery , who died Saturday at 90 , was never out of place on screen .
His presence was absolute .
Noting his supreme confidence , the late film critic Pauline Kael once wrote , “ I don ’ t know any man since Cary Grant that men have wanted to be so much.
” As a more earthy , macho movie-star ideal , Connery was so beloved that he was shared , like folklore , between generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be appealing to the audience , or to anybody , for anything .
With raised eyebrows and roguish wisecracks , there was little that Connery ( nearly always the lead ) didn ’ t command .
And to a certain extent , that cocksureness shaped his career , too .
Connery , 32 when “ Dr .
No ” came out , ” had already lived through World War II .
Born into poverty in Edinburgh , he left school at age 13 during the war and worked as a laborer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He saw Bond , too , as a product of the war .
“ Bond came on the scene after the War , at a time when people were fed up with rationing and drab times and utility clothes and a predominantly gray color in life , ” Connery , who served in the British Navy as a teenager , told Playboy in 1965 .
“ Along comes this character who cuts right through all that like a very hot knife through butter , with his clothing and his cars and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieving fame , Connery contentedly gave it up .
He spent his final two decades cheerfully retired in the Caribbean , often playing golf with his wife , unimpressed and little tempted by more modern Hollywood productions .
( He said he was “ fed up with the idiots.
” ) There was irony in that .
Connery , as the original cinema Bond , did much to make the style and tone of today ’ s movie franchises — even if few carry a lick of Connery ’ s danger .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connery with helping “ create the modern blockbuster.
” It ’ s hard to imagine the suave secret-service spy would have ever become a cultural force if the franchise hadn ’ t from the start traded on its star ’ s brutal charm .
Connery crucially added humor to Ian Fleming ’ s pages , along with a dash of cruelty .
Connery ’ s Bond became etched as an icon of its era , one increasingly distant from today .
He was the epitome of a dashing , womanizing , macho image @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 20th century .
Connery differed from his character in many respects but not all .
In that same Playboy interview , he explained why he believed hitting a woman with an open fist was justifiable .
Bond is the first word on Connery but it ’ s certainly not the last .
Against the pleas of fans , he departed the character at 41 ( he was later coaxed back for 1983 ’ s “ Never Say Never Again ” ) , refusing to be typecast .
His best and most interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill ” ( 1965 ) was the first of five films with Sidney Lumet ( the others were “ The Anderson Tapes , ” “ The Offense , ” “ Murder on the Orient Express ” and “ Family Business ” ) , and while it ’ s less seen than many of Connery ’ s , it remains possibly the best expression of the actor ’ s rugged power .
He plays a prisoner of indomitable strength and defiance jailed in a sadistic British Army WWII military prison in the scorching Libyan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decade later in John Huston ’ s “ The Man Who Would Be King , ” based on the Rudyard Kipling short story , playing a military officer who ’ s embraced as a god in Kafiristan , an impression he struggles to maintain .
It ’ s a perfect role and performance for Connery , whose best work came when he — this former bodybuilder of unimpeachable force and magnetism — was humbled .
Connery ’ s confidence came through most dramatically when it was challenged by foes more formidable than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance in Brian De Palma ’ s Prohibition-era crime film , “ The Untouchables , ” he ’ s alive to Al Capone ’ s threat , telling Kevin Costner ’ s Treasury Department agent : “ You see what I ’ m saying is , what are you prepared to do ?
” Accepting the Academy Award , Connery addressed his wife since 1975 , Micheline Roquebrune .
“ In winning this award , it creates a certain dilemma because I had decided that if I had the good fortune to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my wife , who deserves it , ” he said .
“ But , this evening , I discovered backstage that they ’ re worth $ 15,000 — now I am not so sure .
Micheline , I am only kidding .
It ’ s yours.
” Connery aged well as an actor , crafting more diverse and inquisitive portraits of masculinity .
He played an aging Robin Hood , with Audrey Hepburn , in “ Robin and Marian ” ( 1976 ) , a combustible submarine captain in John McTiernan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a lovable , playful father to Harrison Ford in Steven Spielberg ’ s “ Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade ” ( 1989 ) .
Another “ Indiana Jones , ” Connery said , had been the only thing that really tempted him to come out of retirement .
That could be because the glint of mischief that accompanied nearly every Connery performance was so present in “ The Last Crusade.
” Connery always left you feeling if not shaken then very happily stirred .

Writing an appreciation of Sean Connery feels inevitably inadequate compared to experiencing the real thing. To glimpse his magnetism, you might turn to a photograph of him in a tailored suit, leaning against an Aston Martin. You’d probably get more of his menacing charisma by pulling up the “Chicago way” scene from “The Untouchables.”
It might be enough simply to say: The king is dead.
As a lion of movies for half a century, Mr. Connery’s talent was manifest. He was famously cast as James Bond without a screen test. It was that obvious. And from then on, in even the lesser films, Mr. Connery, who died Saturday at 90, was never out of place on screen. His presence was absolute. Noting his supreme confidence, the late film critic Pauline Kael once wrote, “I don’t know any man since Cary Grant that men have wanted to be so much.”
As a more earthy, macho movie-star ideal, Mr. Connery was so beloved that he was shared, like folklore, between generations. It helped that he never seemed to be appealing to the audience, or to anybody, for anything. With raised eyebrows and roguish wisecracks, there was little that Mr. Connery (nearly always the lead) didn’t command. And to a certain extent, that cocksureness shaped his career, too.
Mr. Connery, 32 when “Dr. No” came out,” had already lived through World War II. Born into poverty in Edinburgh, he left school at age 13 during the war and worked as a laborer and a bricklayer before he donned the tuxedo. He saw Bond, too, as a product of the war.
“Bond came on the scene after the War, at a time when people were fed up with rationing and drab times and utility clothes and a predominantly gray color in life,” Mr. Connery, who served in the British Navy as a teenager, told Playboy in 1965. “Along comes this character who cuts right through all that like a very hot knife through butter, with his clothing and his cars and his wine and his women.”
Long after achieving fame, Mr. Connery contentedly gave it up. He spent his final two decades cheerfully retired in the Caribbean, often playing golf with his wife, unimpressed and little tempted by more modern Hollywood productions. (He said he was “fed up with the idiots.”)
There was irony in that. Mr. Connery, as the original cinema Bond, did much to make the style and tone of today’s movie franchises – even if few carry a lick of Mr. Connery’s danger. His Bond heir Daniel Craig on Saturday credited Mr. Connery with helping “create the modern blockbuster.” It’s hard to imagine the suave secret-service spy would have ever become a cultural force if the franchise hadn’t from the start traded on its star’s brutal charm. Mr. Connery crucially added humor to Ian Fleming’s pages, along with a dash of cruelty.
Mr. Connery’s Bond became etched as an icon of its era, one increasingly distant from today. He was the epitome of a dashing, womanizing, macho image that loomed over the second half of the 20th century. Mr. Connery differed from his character in many respects but not all. In that same Playboy interview, he explained why he believed hitting a woman with an open fist was justifiable.
Bond is the first word on Mr. Connery but it’s certainly not the last. Against the pleas of fans, he departed the character at 41 (he was later coaxed back for 1983’s “Never Say Never Again”), refusing to be typecast. His best and most interesting work all came after.
“The Hill” (1965) was the first of five films with Sidney Lumet (the others were “The Anderson Tapes,” “The Offense,” “Murder on the Orient Express” and “Family Business”), and while it’s less seen than many of Mr. Connery’s, it remains possibly the best expression of the actor’s rugged power. He plays a prisoner of indomitable strength and defiance jailed in a sadistic British Army WWII military prison in the scorching Libyan desert.
He was a soldier again a decade later in John Huston’s “The Man Who Would Be King,” based on the Rudyard Kipling short story, playing a military officer who’s embraced as a god in Kafiristan, an impression he struggles to maintain. It’s a perfect role and performance for Mr. Connery, whose best work came when he – this former bodybuilder of unimpeachable force and magnetism – was humbled.
Mr. Connery’s confidence came through most dramatically when it was challenged by foes more formidable than a Bond villain. In his Oscar-winning performance in Brian De Palma’s Prohibition-era crime film, “The Untouchables,” he’s alive to Al Capone’s threat, telling Kevin Costner’s Treasury Department agent: “You see what I’m saying is, what are you prepared to do?”
Accepting the Academy Award, Mr. Connery addressed his wife since 1975, Micheline Roquebrune. “In winning this award, it creates a certain dilemma because I had decided that if I had the good fortune to win, that I would give it to my wife, who deserves it,” he said. “But, this evening, I discovered backstage that they’re worth $15,000 – now I am not so sure. Micheline, I am only kidding. It’s yours.”
Mr. Connery aged well as an actor, crafting more diverse and inquisitive portraits of masculinity. He played an aging Robin Hood, with Audrey Hepburn, in “Robin and Marian” (1976), a combustible submarine captain in John McTiernan’s “The Hunt for Red October” and a lovable, playful father to Harrison Ford in Steven Spielberg’s “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” (1989).
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Another “Indiana Jones,” Mr. Connery said, had been the only thing that really tempted him to come out of retirement. That could be because the glint of mischief that accompanied nearly every Mr. Connery performance was so present in “The Last Crusade.” Mr. Connery always left you feeling if not shaken then very happily stirred.
This story was reported by The Associated Press.


csmonitor--2020-11-02--Pandemic politics? In Jordan, it has leveled the playing field.

“ Unlike the rest of the world , elections in Jordan were a social event rather than political , ” says Jehad al Momani , spokesman for Jordan ’ s Independent Electoral Commission .
“ Now with the socializing taken away , candidates are faced with the fact that you have to have a political program , too.
” More broadly , the restrictions are an equalizer , allowing candidates with new platforms but fewer resources to enter the fray .
A record 364 female candidates are running , up 44 % from 2016 , as are 30 % more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I am Googling candidates ’ [ backgrounds and qualifications ] before the Facebook rally starts , ” says Khaled Saud , a community organizer , as he squints at his smartphone .
“ Times change , and so must we.
” But the pandemic has pushed Jordanian politics and politicking out of the tents and into the world of online human engagement .
In the past , wealthy tribal sheikhs and businessmen would erect tents , hosting hundreds of relatives , neighbors , and undecided voters for banquets that offered sweets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Jordanians prepare to vote for Parliament next week , social restrictions imposed by the pandemic are acting as a catalyst , shaking up an electoral culture built on blood ties , vote-buying , and tribal peer pressure .
Lamb feasts , mass gatherings , concerts , and cash .
Elections in Jordan were long synonymous with extravagance and socializing : heavy on cholesterol , light on politics .
Yet with the COVID-19 pandemic raging throughout the country , this November ’ s parliamentary elections are looking very different for Jordanian voters like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being wooed in person .
In elections past , wealthy tribal sheikhs and businessmen would erect tents and , in a festival-like atmosphere , host hundreds of relatives , neighbors , and undecided voters for nightly banquets , including sweets , coffee , and promises of jobs – even cash .
But more than ever before , the pandemic has pushed Jordanian politics and politicking out of the tents and into the world of online human engagement .
“ I am Googling candidates ’ [ backgrounds and qualifications ] before the Facebook rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a community organizer , as he squints at his smartphone in Rashidiya , in southern Jordan .
“ Times change , and so must we.
” The pandemic has posed challenges for campaigning and voting in an established democracy like the United States .
But in Jordan , the social restrictions are acting as a catalyst , shaking up an electoral culture built on blood ties , vote-buying , and tribal peer pressure that put clan above personal choice at the ballot box .
More broadly , the restrictions are becoming a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources and new political platforms , including women and young people , to enter the fray .
It is a fundamental shift that experts say is on a par with scrapping the Electoral College in the U.S. “ Unlike the rest of the world , elections in Jordan were a social event rather than political , ” says Jehad al Momani , spokesman for Jordan ’ s Independent Electoral Commission .
“ Now with the socializing taken away , candidates are faced with the fact that you have to have a political program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long dominated Jordan ’ s Parliament , the kingdom ’ s lawmaking body , overwhelming purely political groups that have splintered into 48 mostly ineffective parties in a country of 6.5 million citizens .
Outside Amman , large tribes would agree on a candidate , expecting their followers to fall in line ; smaller tribes were promised “ benefits.
” Candidates barely spoke a word .
It was more of a coronation than a campaign .
But this year Jordan ’ s government has imposed strict measures for the elections Nov. 10 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , imposing weekend lockdowns and nighttime curfews , and making tent campaigning all but impossible .
A five-day lockdown is set for Nov. 11 .
The ban on social gatherings has also made competing in Jordanian elections affordable and , candidates say , accessible .
The average campaign once cost tens of thousands of dollars ; now all that is needed is the $ 700 registration fee , leveling the playing field for women and youth candidates who would otherwise be unable to compete with deep-pocketed sheikhs and businessmen .
This has led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up 44 % from 2016 , and a 30 % rise in candidates under the age of 40 .
Samiha Sarayreh , a former school principal in Karak , in southern Jordan , is one of the dozens of women running for Parliament for the first time .
She uses Facebook , Zoom , and WhatsApp to reach her base of women and former colleagues – showcasing her trademark brutal honesty and commonsense outrage , and addressing issues such as distance learning , unemployment , and corruption .
“ I decided to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reach voters directly , and they can decide who will speak for them , not what their tribe says or who has the most money , ” Mrs. Sarayreh says as she meets with three masked voters in her home in Karak .
She says she is tapping into growing frustration with male-dominated parliaments and a broader push by King Abdullah to have more women in leadership positions .
“ There is a sense that we have tried men and have gotten the same disappointing results .
Why not give the women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The low cost of elections has created an opening for women and young people this year , ” says Wafaa Mustafa Tarawneh , who this year formed Jordan ’ s first all-women electoral list , Nishmiyat Haya , and is competing against relatives , much to the outrage of her tribe .
She has inspired three additional all-women electoral lists across the country .
“ In a time of pandemic , people are looking for policies and solutions , and there is a sense that women are more trustworthy and able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While long given a free pass , tribes and businessmen have been put on their heels by the crisis , with citizens demanding solutions to the health crisis , education , and job creation in a country that has seen 23 % nationwide unemployment and jobless rates reach 50 % outside the capital .
“ People are demanding solutions , ” says Hussein Mahadin , dean of the school of sociology at the University of Mutah , who served as a moderator for candidate debates .
“ The tribe ’ s monopoly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and women and independents are finally breaking through.
” With social pressures defanged by social distancing , citizens have felt freer to register and run in the elections without the green light from their elders .
In Karak , Jordan ’ s political heartland , tribes that once strategically fielded one or two candidates suddenly have eight or more members running for Parliament , all running on different platforms but splitting the familial vote .
The main road leading to the city and through outlying villages is plastered with posters of different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one posted on top of the other as if in competition .
“ Tribes are being divided ; I have my cousin , my uncle , and brother-in-law running .
Which one am I supposed to choose ?
” says Khaled , an English teacher who long voted the tribal consensus .
“ This may be my one chance to make a free individual choice , because it is impossible to satisfy a divided tribe.
” With the field divided , and unable to count on their generosity or peer pressure to secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to campaign virtually and compete for undecided voters and persons they have never met .
“ Before , a candidate would only address people they knew or were related to , so their speech was limited to the issues facing their relatives and village , if they ever spoke at all , ” says Mr. Mahadin , the sociologist .
“ Now candidates are forced to go beyond their tribe ; they have to address a larger segment of society .
They have to focus on broader , inclusive social issues facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s easier said than done .
Facebook Live and Zoom rallies by uncharismatic candidates used to a “ coronation ” have struggled , sputtered , and are panned on social media .
Money is still filtering into Jordan ’ s elections ; flush candidates are spending tens of thousands of dollars on Facebook advertising .
More creative candidates have tried to get around strict election laws by offering weekend getaways at four-star beachside hotels at rock-bottom prices for voters chafing at weekend lockdowns .
Yet again , COVID-19 is proving to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many electoral lists , forcing candidates off the campaign trail and even into the hospital in the election ’ s final days .
One positive test can doom an entire list built on tribal name recognition .
“ People are learning the hard way : If you don ’ t have a political platform and your candidate gets sick , you ’ re stuck , ” says Badi Al Rafiya , campaign manager for the Islamist-leaning Islah coalition , which has had several candidates contract the coronavirus .
“ If you focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can still find ways to succeed without face-to-face campaigning .
A person can get ill , but the platform continues to resonate.
” These changes are expected to continue long after COVID-19 subsides ; multiple women ’ s coalitions are set to form Jordan ’ s first all-women political parties , and debates via social media are now the norm .
But political veterans say there will always be room for a little glad-handing in Jordan ’ s elections .
“ Facebook debates and Zoom campaigning may be the future , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rafiya says , “ nothing beats a rally .
”

“Unlike the rest of the world, elections in Jordan were a social event rather than political,” says Jehad al Momani, spokesman for Jordan’s Independent Electoral Commission. “Now with the socializing taken away, candidates are faced with the fact that you have to have a political program, too.”
More broadly, the restrictions are an equalizer, allowing candidates with new platforms but fewer resources to enter the fray. A record 364 female candidates are running, up 44% from 2016, as are 30% more candidates under the age of 40.
“I am Googling candidates’ [backgrounds and qualifications] before the Facebook rally starts,” says Khaled Saud, a community organizer, as he squints at his smartphone. “Times change, and so must we.”
But the pandemic has pushed Jordanian politics and politicking out of the tents and into the world of online human engagement.
Few Americans would say the coronavirus has benefited this election season. But in Jordan, pandemic restrictions have played the role of equalizer, opening the door to new candidates, and perhaps more democracy.
In the past, wealthy tribal sheikhs and businessmen would erect tents, hosting hundreds of relatives, neighbors, and undecided voters for banquets that offered sweets, coffee, and promises of jobs.
As Jordanians prepare to vote for Parliament next week, social restrictions imposed by the pandemic are acting as a catalyst, shaking up an electoral culture built on blood ties, vote-buying, and tribal peer pressure.
Lamb feasts, mass gatherings, concerts, and cash. Elections in Jordan were long synonymous with extravagance and socializing: heavy on cholesterol, light on politics.
Yet with the COVID-19 pandemic raging throughout the country, this November’s parliamentary elections are looking very different for Jordanian voters like Khaled Saud who are long accustomed to being wooed in person.
In elections past, wealthy tribal sheikhs and businessmen would erect tents and, in a festival-like atmosphere, host hundreds of relatives, neighbors, and undecided voters for nightly banquets, including sweets, coffee, and promises of jobs – even cash.
Why We Wrote This Few Americans would say the coronavirus has benefited this election season. But in Jordan, pandemic restrictions have played the role of equalizer, opening the door to new candidates, and perhaps more democracy.
But more than ever before, the pandemic has pushed Jordanian politics and politicking out of the tents and into the world of online human engagement.
“I am Googling candidates’ [backgrounds and qualifications] before the Facebook rally starts,” says Mr. Saud, a community organizer, as he squints at his smartphone in Rashidiya, in southern Jordan. “Times change, and so must we.”
The pandemic has posed challenges for campaigning and voting in an established democracy like the United States.
But in Jordan, the social restrictions are acting as a catalyst, shaking up an electoral culture built on blood ties, vote-buying, and tribal peer pressure that put clan above personal choice at the ballot box.
More broadly, the restrictions are becoming a great equalizer, allowing candidates with fewer financial resources and new political platforms, including women and young people, to enter the fray.
It is a fundamental shift that experts say is on a par with scrapping the Electoral College in the U.S.
“Unlike the rest of the world, elections in Jordan were a social event rather than political,” says Jehad al Momani, spokesman for Jordan’s Independent Electoral Commission. “Now with the socializing taken away, candidates are faced with the fact that you have to have a political program, too.”
Politics made affordable
Tribes and businessmen have long dominated Jordan’s Parliament, the kingdom’s lawmaking body, overwhelming purely political groups that have splintered into 48 mostly ineffective parties in a country of 6.5 million citizens.
Outside Amman, large tribes would agree on a candidate, expecting their followers to fall in line; smaller tribes were promised “benefits.” Candidates barely spoke a word. It was more of a coronation than a campaign.
But this year Jordan’s government has imposed strict measures for the elections Nov. 10, banning gatherings of more than 20 people, imposing weekend lockdowns and nighttime curfews, and making tent campaigning all but impossible. A five-day lockdown is set for Nov. 11.
The ban on social gatherings has also made competing in Jordanian elections affordable and, candidates say, accessible.
The average campaign once cost tens of thousands of dollars; now all that is needed is the $700 registration fee, leveling the playing field for women and youth candidates who would otherwise be unable to compete with deep-pocketed sheikhs and businessmen.
This has led to a record 364 women candidates, up 44% from 2016, and a 30% rise in candidates under the age of 40.
Taylor Luck View caption Hide caption Samiha Sarayreh, a former school principal whose candidacy for Parliament is fueled by social media, at her home in Karak, in southern Jordan, Oct. 31, 2020.
Samiha Sarayreh, a former school principal in Karak, in southern Jordan, is one of the dozens of women running for Parliament for the first time.
She uses Facebook, Zoom, and WhatsApp to reach her base of women and former colleagues – showcasing her trademark brutal honesty and commonsense outrage, and addressing issues such as distance learning, unemployment, and corruption.
“Give the women a chance”
“I decided to run this year because I have the chance to reach voters directly, and they can decide who will speak for them, not what their tribe says or who has the most money,” Mrs. Sarayreh says as she meets with three masked voters in her home in Karak. She says she is tapping into growing frustration with male-dominated parliaments and a broader push by King Abdullah to have more women in leadership positions.
“There is a sense that we have tried men and have gotten the same disappointing results. Why not give the women a chance?” she says.
“The low cost of elections has created an opening for women and young people this year,” says Wafa Yousif Tarawneh, who this year formed Jordan’s first all-women electoral list, Nishmiyat Haya, and is competing against relatives, much to the outrage of her tribe. She has inspired three additional all-women electoral lists across the country.
“In a time of pandemic, people are looking for policies and solutions, and there is a sense that women are more trustworthy and able to provide that,” Ms. Tarawneh says.
While long given a free pass, tribes and businessmen have been put on their heels by the crisis, with citizens demanding solutions to the health crisis, education, and job creation in a country that has seen 23% nationwide unemployment and jobless rates reach 50% outside the capital.
“People are demanding solutions,” says Hussein Mahadin, dean of the school of sociology at the University of Mutah, who served as a moderator for candidate debates. “The tribe’s monopoly on politics and society is being broken, and women and independents are finally breaking through.”
With social pressures defanged by social distancing, citizens have felt freer to register and run in the elections without the green light from their elders.
Taylor Luck View caption Hide caption Wafa Yousif Tarawneh, who founded Jordan's first all-women electoral list, stands beside an election poster on a car in Karak, in southern Jordan, Oct. 31, 2020.
In Karak, Jordan’s political heartland, tribes that once strategically fielded one or two candidates suddenly have eight or more members running for Parliament, all running on different platforms but splitting the familial vote.
The main road leading to the city and through outlying villages is plastered with posters of different faces with the same family name, one posted on top of the other as if in competition.
“Tribes are being divided; I have my cousin, my uncle, and brother-in-law running. Which one am I supposed to choose?” says Khaled, an English teacher who long voted the tribal consensus.
“This may be my one chance to make a free individual choice, because it is impossible to satisfy a divided tribe.”
With the field divided, and unable to count on their generosity or peer pressure to secure votes, tribesmen and businessmen are being forced to campaign virtually and compete for undecided voters and persons they have never met.
“Before, a candidate would only address people they knew or were related to, so their speech was limited to the issues facing their relatives and village, if they ever spoke at all,” says Mr. Mahadin, the sociologist.
“Now candidates are forced to go beyond their tribe; they have to address a larger segment of society. They have to focus on broader, inclusive social issues facing citizens across the country.”
Platforms and issues
It’s easier said than done. Facebook Live and Zoom rallies by uncharismatic candidates used to a “coronation” have struggled, sputtered, and are panned on social media.
Money is still filtering into Jordan’s elections; flush candidates are spending tens of thousands of dollars on Facebook advertising. More creative candidates have tried to get around strict election laws by offering weekend getaways at four-star beachside hotels at rock-bottom prices for voters chafing at weekend lockdowns.
Yet again, COVID-19 is proving to be the great equalizer.
The virus has ravaged many electoral lists, forcing candidates off the campaign trail and even into the hospital in the election’s final days. One positive test can doom an entire list built on tribal name recognition.
“People are learning the hard way: If you don’t have a political platform and your candidate gets sick, you’re stuck,” says Badi Al Rafiya, campaign manager for the Islamist-leaning Islah coalition, which has had several candidates contract the coronavirus.
“If you focus on issues and not names and personalities, you can still find ways to succeed without face-to-face campaigning. A person can get ill, but the platform continues to resonate.”
These changes are expected to continue long after COVID-19 subsides; multiple women’s coalitions are set to form Jordan’s first all-women political parties, and debates via social media are now the norm.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
But political veterans say there will always be room for a little glad-handing in Jordan’s elections.
“Facebook debates and Zoom campaigning may be the future, but as even America shows,” Mr. Rafiya says, “nothing beats a rally.”


csmonitor--2020-11-02--Election 2020’s fundamental question: ‘What defines America?’

“ I ’ m an optimist about democracies ’ ability to shift course and remedy mistakes , ” she says .
In the short run , Professor Berman says she ’ s worried about the 2020 vote and the possibility of a crisis instigated by fraud charges and court intervention .
But for the long run she ’ s more hopeful .
The good news is that this is far from foreordained .
After all , the ability to change and correct course is fundamental to democracy , says Sheri Berman , a professor of political science at Barnard College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really need defending , say experts on democratic rise and decline .
If they decay too much , the parties may think the game of democracy is in fact no longer worth playing , and become locked in a downward spiral of mutually abusive hardball tactics .
But the past four years have damaged not just political norms , but the underlying values they represent : tolerance of opponents , forbearance in the use of power , belief in the power of voting .
Both supporters and critics of President Donald Trump agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His supporters often say he was elected in 2016 to shake up the status quo .
Complaints about the threat he poses to the existing order are simply liberal pearl-clutching , in this view .
President Donald Trump has spent much of the past four years pushing boundaries and breaking through norms and traditions that have long defined American democracy .
He ’ s declined to sever ties with his businesses while in office , saying “ the president can ’ t have a conflict of interest.
” During a summit with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Mar-a-Lago club charged the government $ 3 for Mr. Trump ’ s own glass of water .
He ’ s tried to harness the powers of U.S. justice for his own benefit , publicly pushing his attorney general to jail political adversaries such as former President Barack Obama for unsubstantiated “ treasonous ” actions .
He ’ s attacked in advance the outcome of the upcoming presidential election , falsely saying mail-in balloting is inherently fraudulent .
He tells his supporters that Democrats can win only if voting is “ rigged.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply be the apotheosis of long-standing strains and problems with the great machinery of democratic governance established by the Constitution in 1788 .
The rise of toxic , tribal partisanship has made the nation ’ s political combat much fiercer .
Both parties are beginning to regard the other as not just opponents , but perhaps enemies .
Both may be beginning to lose faith in the fairness of the rules of the U.S. political system .
But on top of these existing problems , Mr. Trump has piled an “ extraordinary rhetorical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ severe costs , ” in the words of Obama White House counsel Bob Bauer .
This may have damaged not just political norms , but the underlying values they represent : tolerance of opponents , forbearance in the use of power , belief in the power of voting .
It ’ s these values , not norms and traditions per se , that really need defending , say experts on democratic rise and decline .
If they decay too much , the parties may think the game of democracy is in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locked in a downward spiral of mutually abusive hardball tactics .
The good news is that this is far from foreordained .
For instance , Mr. Bauer and co-author Jack Goldsmith , a top Justice Department official under President George W. Bush , in “ After Trump : Reconstructing the Presidency , ” have compiled a list of more than 50 proposed legislative and executive changes that could plug and patch over holes and faults exposed by the president during the past four years .
Others , including Democrats in Congress , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a national reform effort for democracy following Mr. Trump ’ s exit , whenever that is .
The model is the post-Watergate era , when there was at least something of a bipartisan national consensus that things had gone badly wrong and needed to be fixed .
After all , the ability to change and correct course is fundamental to democracy , says Sheri Berman , a professor of political science at Barnard College and author of “ Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe : From the Ancien Régime to the Present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points that push national politics in a transformative direction , as they did in the U.S. following Watergate or the onset of the Great Depression .
In the short run , Professor Berman says she ’ s worried about the 2020 vote and the possibility of a crisis instigated by fraud charges and court intervention .
But for the long run she ’ s more hopeful .
“ I ’ m an optimist about democracies ’ ability to shift course and remedy mistakes , ” she says .
Not all Americans share that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pessimistic or worried about the state of the nation ’ s democracy and government , according to polls .
According to recent Pew Research Center figures , 59 % of Americans are “ not satisfied ” with the way democracy is working in the country .
By way of contrast , the same figure among Canadian citizens is 33 % .
Only 46 % of Americans agree that the nation is “ run for the benefit of all , ” according to Pew .
That ’ s down from 65 % who agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a quarter of U.S. citizens believe America ’ s system of democracy is getting stronger , according to a Democracy Project survey .
Sixty-eight percent think democracy is getting weaker .
“ Confidence in our governing institutions has been weakening over many years , and key pillars of our democracy , including the rule of law and freedom of the press , are under strain , ” concludes a special report of The Democracy Project , a joint venture of Freedom House , the Penn Biden Center , and the George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One way to understand what ’ s happening to American democracy is to think of it as a game in which both sides want to keep playing for an infinite number of rounds , say experts .
It ’ s important that neither side is ever permanently defeated , or becomes so angry and demoralized that it wants to stop playing .
Two key unwritten democratic norms underlie this system , write Harvard University government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their 2018 book , “ How Democracies Die.
” The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side accepts the other as legitimate .
The second is forbearance , in which politicians resist the temptation to use temporary control of political institutions to maximum advantage .
Both have eroded in recent years , says Professor Levitsky in an interview .
“ It ’ s definitely gotten worse , ” he says .
“ It was an especially speedy effect.
” The obvious example for this is the partisan struggle over Supreme Court nominations .
The GOP-controlled Senate denied Democratic Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in President Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then turned around and pushed through Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett under similar circumstances .
Republicans , for their part , cite what they perceive to be harsh Democratic treatment of other nominees , including Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and the failed nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 , as partial justification for their tough tactics .
They also point out that the party that controls the Senate can do what it likes .
In response , some Democrats are now calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court if Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , along with a possible end to the Senate filibuster .
“ There is much greater pressure in at least a wing of the Democratic Party for hardball moves .
Even at the rank and file level , ” says Professor Levitsky .
He and co-author Professor Ziblatt support some sort of Democratic response to what they characterize as minority rule in the United States , in which the party that wins the popular vote can still lose in the Electoral College .
That response might include ending the Senate filibuster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Washington , D.C. Other experts worry that this sort of thing in other countries has tended to further ignite a tit-for-tat cycle .
If a Democratic Party in control of Congress and the White House names two new states , what would happen the next time the GOP is in the same position ?
Division of states to add yet more senators ?
It ’ s easy for parties to take short-term gains , while believing against evidence that they ’ ll be able to temper the long-term cost when the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you get into this sort of vicious cycle , it is very hard to break , ” says Professor Berman of Barnard College .
“ This is not a recipe for democratic health ” President Trump ’ s supporters often say he was elected in 2016 to shake up the status quo , and that breaking norms and old traditions is just what they expected him to do .
Complaints about the threat he poses to the existing order is simply liberal pearl-clutching , in this view .
In addition , he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they say .
He ’ s built and expanded on things that were already happening .
But that ’ s something that truly authoritarian leaders often do , says Valerie Jane Bunce , a professor of government at Cornell University who specializes in the rise and fall of democracies .
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and others have exploited existing institutional weaknesses to carry out anti-democratic agendas , Professor Bunce says .
“ Trump is unique in how far he has gone in this direction and how easy it was for him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political polarization ... and the decline of U.S. political institutions , ” she says in an email .
The partisan polarization of America long predates the Trump era .
For decades , American social identity has gradually been aligning with political identity , producing parties that are not only ideologically different – liberal versus conservative – but racially , educationally , and religiously distinct as well .
The result : an increasingly powerful “ my team ” effect , to the point where members of both parties hold highly unfavorable views of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump after he was impeached for improperly pressuring the president of Ukraine to open an investigation into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden .
The trial vote in the Senate was a virtually straight party affair , with all but one Republican , Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah , voting to acquit .
Polarization is what ’ s kept Senate Republicans in general lockstep behind President Trump since , given his hold on their party ’ s base and lawmakers ’ fear of being challenged in a primary by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Trump tweet for being insufficiently supportive .
Polarization will also likely exist long after President Trump has left the stage , says Jeffrey Stonecash , professor emeritus of political science at Syracuse University .
To understand it , we need to examine the ideas and values that drive it – which groups embrace some ideas and not others , and how those groups politically align , he argues .
At the heart of all this is a question , Professor Stonecash says : What defines America ?
“ A fundamental argument coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things are not fair , ” he says .
“ You have a Republican Party making a moral argument that ’ s fundamentally different ... that it ’ s not about ‘ fairness , ’ it ’ s about who ’ s more deserving.
” As for the decline of U.S. political institutions , President Trump has benefited from the gridlock that has overtaken Congress in recent decades , weakening its ability to counter the executive branch .
The presidency , meanwhile , has been correspondingly gaining in power .
Presidents George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with executive orders , after all ; both ignored Congress on war powers when it suited them .
In that sense , with executive orders that have mandated big changes in U.S. immigration policy , the raiding of Pentagon accounts to fund the southern border wall , and the assassination of a leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard , President Trump is simply taking precedent and dialing it up several notches .
“ This is not a recipe for democratic health , ” says Professor Berman .
If President Trump wins the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oval Office powers – things his opponents often label abuse of power – will undoubtedly continue .
He will likely see reelection as voter acceptance of his behavior .
It might even accelerate , given that the president has over the past four years steadily weeded out top officials who try to block some of his efforts .
For instance , Attorney General Barr has so far ignored Mr. Trump ’ s public insistence that he arrest former President Obama , Hillary Clinton , and Joe Biden on unsubstantiated charges that they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president possibly find a new attorney general who would carry out such incendiary action ?
Mr. Trump to this point in his presidency has not actually acted in an unfettered manner , says Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith .
He has faced some pushback from government institutions .
He was impeached by the House earlier this year , after all .
Courts have blocked or forced major changes to his travel ban and other administration efforts .
Aides have sat on or refused requests they deemed controversial or illegal , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that special counsel Robert Mueller be fired .
Thus at least some of the guardrails of American democracy remain in place .
If Mr. Biden is elected president and Democrats win a majority in both the Senate and House , however , Washington is likely to see a major effort to produce a package of democracy reforms intended to repair and rebuild the norms and traditions shattered in recent years .
The analogy may be to the 1970s , when following the turmoil of Vietnam and the Nixon era , Congress reformed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while passing major laws such as the War Powers Act , the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , the Privacy Act , the Inspector General Act , and other open government bills .
“ If Biden wins , I suspect there will be an attempt to engage in reforms kind of like after Watergate , ” says Professor Berman of Barnard College .
House Democrats have already begun drawing up a list of reforms , which includes among other things a mechanism to enforce the Constitutional ban on presidents accepting things of value from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the power of the purse , a requirement that political campaigns report suspicious foreign contacts to the FBI , and limits on presidential emergency powers .
Mr. Bauer and Professor Goldsmith , who served a Democratic and a Republican administration respectively , have fleshed out an extensive blueprint of possible overhauls in their “ After Trump ” book .
“ The proposals are based on the assumption that there may be more Trumps in the future , ” says Professor Goldsmith .
“ The goal is to put constraints in place.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one reform priority , they urge .
They recommend writing in law a requirement that presidents and vice presidents and candidates for those offices disclose their annual tax returns .
They also urge that Congress bar presidents from active or supervisory roles in the oversight of any business , even if such a role is informal .
Ensuring Justice Department independence is another priority , the pair say .
That means amending internal department rules and guidance to emphasize ethical principles insulating law enforcement decisions from improper partisan political considerations .
They would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change bribery laws to make clear that it is illegal to dangle pardons to bribe witnesses or obstruct justice .
The point is not to cut down the presidency .
America needs a powerful chief executive to ensure effective national governing .
The point is to ensure that voters retain confidence that presidents – of either party – can ’ t go too far .
“ You can ’ t stop future Trumps if you think this is only behavior a Republican president would engage in , ” says Professor Goldsmith .

“I’m an optimist about democracies’ ability to shift course and remedy mistakes,” she says.
In the short run, Professor Berman says she’s worried about the 2020 vote and the possibility of a crisis instigated by fraud charges and court intervention. But for the long run she’s more hopeful.
The good news is that this is far from foreordained. After all, the ability to change and correct course is fundamental to democracy, says Sheri Berman, a professor of political science at Barnard College.
It’s these values that really need defending, say experts on democratic rise and decline. If they decay too much, the parties may think the game of democracy is in fact no longer worth playing, and become locked in a downward spiral of mutually abusive hardball tactics.
Democratic elections can be break points that push national politics in a transformative direction, as they did in the U.S. following Watergate or the onset of the Great Depression.
But the past four years have damaged not just political norms, but the underlying values they represent: tolerance of opponents, forbearance in the use of power, belief in the power of voting.
Both supporters and critics of President Donald Trump agree he’s been a norm-busting president. His supporters often say he was elected in 2016 to shake up the status quo. Complaints about the threat he poses to the existing order are simply liberal pearl-clutching, in this view.
President Donald Trump has spent much of the past four years pushing boundaries and breaking through norms and traditions that have long defined American democracy.
He’s declined to sever ties with his businesses while in office, saying “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” During a summit with the Japanese prime minister, the president’s Mar-a-Lago club charged the government $3 for Mr. Trump’s own glass of water.
He’s tried to harness the powers of U.S. justice for his own benefit, publicly pushing his attorney general to jail political adversaries such as former President Barack Obama for unsubstantiated “treasonous” actions.
Why We Wrote This Democratic elections can be break points that push national politics in a transformative direction, as they did in the U.S. following Watergate or the onset of the Great Depression.
He’s attacked in advance the outcome of the upcoming presidential election, falsely saying mail-in balloting is inherently fraudulent. He tells his supporters that Democrats can win only if voting is “rigged.”
In many ways President Trump may simply be the apotheosis of long-standing strains and problems with the great machinery of democratic governance established by the Constitution in 1788. The rise of toxic, tribal partisanship has made the nation’s political combat much fiercer. Both parties are beginning to regard the other as not just opponents, but perhaps enemies. Both may be beginning to lose faith in the fairness of the rules of the U.S. political system.
But on top of these existing problems, Mr. Trump has piled an “extraordinary rhetorical audacity and recklessness” that has had “severe costs,” in the words of Obama White House counsel Bob Bauer. This may have damaged not just political norms, but the underlying values they represent: tolerance of opponents, forbearance in the use of power, belief in the power of voting.
It’s these values, not norms and traditions per se, that really need defending, say experts on democratic rise and decline. If they decay too much, the parties may think the game of democracy is in fact no longer worth playing, and become locked in a downward spiral of mutually abusive hardball tactics.
The good news is that this is far from foreordained. For instance, Mr. Bauer and co-author Jack Goldsmith, a top Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, in “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency,” have compiled a list of more than 50 proposed legislative and executive changes that could plug and patch over holes and faults exposed by the president during the past four years.
Others, including Democrats in Congress, have begun similar efforts. Their point is to have a national reform effort for democracy following Mr. Trump’s exit, whenever that is. The model is the post-Watergate era, when there was at least something of a bipartisan national consensus that things had gone badly wrong and needed to be fixed.
After all, the ability to change and correct course is fundamental to democracy, says Sheri Berman, a professor of political science at Barnard College and author of “Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe: From the Ancien Régime to the Present Day.”
Jim Rassol/AP View caption Hide caption Supporters of President Donald Trump gather for a campaign rally at Opa-Locka Executive Airport, Sunday, Nov. 1, 2020, in Opa-Locka, Fla.
Democratic elections can be break points that push national politics in a transformative direction, as they did in the U.S. following Watergate or the onset of the Great Depression.
In the short run, Professor Berman says she’s worried about the 2020 vote and the possibility of a crisis instigated by fraud charges and court intervention. But for the long run she’s more hopeful.
“I’m an optimist about democracies’ ability to shift course and remedy mistakes,” she says.
How to break a vicious cycle
Not all Americans share that optimism. In fact, many are pessimistic or worried about the state of the nation’s democracy and government, according to polls.
According to recent Pew Research Center figures, 59% of Americans are “not satisfied” with the way democracy is working in the country. By way of contrast, the same figure among Canadian citizens is 33%.
Only 46% of Americans agree that the nation is “run for the benefit of all,” according to Pew. That’s down from 65% who agreed with that statement in 2002. And only a quarter of U.S. citizens believe America’s system of democracy is getting stronger, according to a Democracy Project survey. Sixty-eight percent think democracy is getting weaker.
“Confidence in our governing institutions has been weakening over many years, and key pillars of our democracy, including the rule of law and freedom of the press, are under strain,” concludes a special report of The Democracy Project, a joint venture of Freedom House, the Penn Biden Center, and the George W. Bush Institute at Southern Methodist University.
One way to understand what’s happening to American democracy is to think of it as a game in which both sides want to keep playing for an infinite number of rounds, say experts. It’s important that neither side is ever permanently defeated, or becomes so angry and demoralized that it wants to stop playing.
Two key unwritten democratic norms underlie this system, write Harvard University government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their 2018 book, “How Democracies Die.” The first is mutual toleration, in which each side accepts the other as legitimate. The second is forbearance, in which politicians resist the temptation to use temporary control of political institutions to maximum advantage.
Both have eroded in recent years, says Professor Levitsky in an interview.
“It’s definitely gotten worse,” he says. “It was an especially speedy effect.”
J. Scott Applewhite/AP View caption Hide caption A protester opposed to the Senate's race to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett is removed by police after chaining themselves to a railing and holding a sign while sitting atop the statue Contemplation of Justice, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Sunday, Oct. 25, 2020.
The obvious example for this is the partisan struggle over Supreme Court nominations. The GOP-controlled Senate denied Democratic Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in President Barack Obama’s last year in office, then turned around and pushed through Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett under similar circumstances.
Republicans, for their part, cite what they perceive to be harsh Democratic treatment of other nominees, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and the failed nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, as partial justification for their tough tactics. They also point out that the party that controls the Senate can do what it likes.
In response, some Democrats are now calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court if Joe Biden is elected president and the party wins the Senate, along with a possible end to the Senate filibuster.
“There is much greater pressure in at least a wing of the Democratic Party for hardball moves. Even at the rank and file level,” says Professor Levitsky.
He and co-author Professor Ziblatt support some sort of Democratic response to what they characterize as minority rule in the United States, in which the party that wins the popular vote can still lose in the Electoral College. That response might include ending the Senate filibuster, and extending statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.
Other experts worry that this sort of thing in other countries has tended to further ignite a tit-for-tat cycle. If a Democratic Party in control of Congress and the White House names two new states, what would happen the next time the GOP is in the same position? Division of states to add yet more senators? It’s easy for parties to take short-term gains, while believing against evidence that they’ll be able to temper the long-term cost when the other party is in power.
“Once you get into this sort of vicious cycle, it is very hard to break,” says Professor Berman of Barnard College.
“This is not a recipe for democratic health”
President Trump’s supporters often say he was elected in 2016 to shake up the status quo, and that breaking norms and old traditions is just what they expected him to do. Complaints about the threat he poses to the existing order is simply liberal pearl-clutching, in this view.
In addition, he has just taken advantage of existing trends, they say. He’s built and expanded on things that were already happening.
But that’s something that truly authoritarian leaders often do, says Valerie Jane Bunce, a professor of government at Cornell University who specializes in the rise and fall of democracies. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and others have exploited existing institutional weaknesses to carry out anti-democratic agendas, Professor Bunce says.
“Trump is unique in how far he has gone in this direction and how easy it was for him to do so as a result of both political polarization ... and the decline of U.S. political institutions,” she says in an email.
The partisan polarization of America long predates the Trump era. For decades, American social identity has gradually been aligning with political identity, producing parties that are not only ideologically different – liberal versus conservative – but racially, educationally, and religiously distinct as well. The result: an increasingly powerful “my team” effect, to the point where members of both parties hold highly unfavorable views of their opponents.
Polarization is what protected President Trump after he was impeached for improperly pressuring the president of Ukraine to open an investigation into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden. The trial vote in the Senate was a virtually straight party affair, with all but one Republican, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, voting to acquit.
Polarization is what’s kept Senate Republicans in general lockstep behind President Trump since, given his hold on their party’s base and lawmakers’ fear of being challenged in a primary by a more pro-Trump supporter, or belittled by a Trump tweet for being insufficiently supportive.
Polarization will also likely exist long after President Trump has left the stage, says Jeffrey Stonecash, professor emeritus of political science at Syracuse University. To understand it, we need to examine the ideas and values that drive it – which groups embrace some ideas and not others, and how those groups politically align, he argues.
At the heart of all this is a question, Professor Stonecash says: What defines America?
“A fundamental argument coming out of the Democratic Party is that things are not fair,” he says. “You have a Republican Party making a moral argument that’s fundamentally different ... that it’s not about ‘fairness,’ it’s about who’s more deserving.”
Susan Walsh/AP View caption Hide caption President Donald Trump signs an executive order during a news conference at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, Saturday, Aug. 8, 2020.
As for the decline of U.S. political institutions, President Trump has benefited from the gridlock that has overtaken Congress in recent decades, weakening its ability to counter the executive branch. The presidency, meanwhile, has been correspondingly gaining in power. Presidents George W. Bush and Obama both made aggressive moves with executive orders, after all; both ignored Congress on war powers when it suited them. In that sense, with executive orders that have mandated big changes in U.S. immigration policy, the raiding of Pentagon accounts to fund the southern border wall, and the assassination of a leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, President Trump is simply taking precedent and dialing it up several notches.
“This is not a recipe for democratic health,” says Professor Berman.
Recipe for Washington reform?
If President Trump wins the 2020 election, his norm-breaking and stretching of Oval Office powers – things his opponents often label abuse of power – will undoubtedly continue. He will likely see reelection as voter acceptance of his behavior.
It might even accelerate, given that the president has over the past four years steadily weeded out top officials who try to block some of his efforts. For instance, Attorney General Barr has so far ignored Mr. Trump’s public insistence that he arrest former President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden on unsubstantiated charges that they have launched a “coup.” Could the president possibly find a new attorney general who would carry out such incendiary action?
Mr. Trump to this point in his presidency has not actually acted in an unfettered manner, says Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith. He has faced some pushback from government institutions. He was impeached by the House earlier this year, after all.
Courts have blocked or forced major changes to his travel ban and other administration efforts. Aides have sat on or refused requests they deemed controversial or illegal, such as Mr. Trump’s insistence in 2017 that special counsel Robert Mueller be fired.
Thus at least some of the guardrails of American democracy remain in place.
“Norms can work,” says Professor Goldsmith.
If Mr. Biden is elected president and Democrats win a majority in both the Senate and House, however, Washington is likely to see a major effort to produce a package of democracy reforms intended to repair and rebuild the norms and traditions shattered in recent years.
The analogy may be to the 1970s, when following the turmoil of Vietnam and the Nixon era, Congress reformed the civil service and presidential record-keeping and transparency while passing major laws such as the War Powers Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Privacy Act, the Inspector General Act, and other open government bills.
“If Biden wins, I suspect there will be an attempt to engage in reforms kind of like after Watergate,” says Professor Berman of Barnard College.
House Democrats have already begun drawing up a list of reforms, which includes among other things a mechanism to enforce the Constitutional ban on presidents accepting things of value from foreign nations, reassertion of congressional control of the power of the purse, a requirement that political campaigns report suspicious foreign contacts to the FBI, and limits on presidential emergency powers.
Mr. Bauer and Professor Goldsmith, who served a Democratic and a Republican administration respectively, have fleshed out an extensive blueprint of possible overhauls in their “After Trump” book.
“The proposals are based on the assumption that there may be more Trumps in the future,” says Professor Goldsmith. “The goal is to put constraints in place.”
Addressing financial conflicts of interest should be one reform priority, they urge. They recommend writing in law a requirement that presidents and vice presidents and candidates for those offices disclose their annual tax returns. They also urge that Congress bar presidents from active or supervisory roles in the oversight of any business, even if such a role is informal.
Ensuring Justice Department independence is another priority, the pair say. That means amending internal department rules and guidance to emphasize ethical principles insulating law enforcement decisions from improper partisan political considerations.
They would also prohibit presidents from pardoning themselves and change bribery laws to make clear that it is illegal to dangle pardons to bribe witnesses or obstruct justice.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
The point is not to cut down the presidency. America needs a powerful chief executive to ensure effective national governing. The point is to ensure that voters retain confidence that presidents – of either party – can’t go too far.
“You can’t stop future Trumps if you think this is only behavior a Republican president would engage in,” says Professor Goldsmith.


Understanding polarization

If you were to reduce the past 30 years of American elections down to a single word , it might well be one you ’ d never think of : “ sorting.
” The dominant trend in American politics during that time has been polarization , but that word alone doesn ’ t capture what ’ s going on .
America is not just becoming more liberal and more conservative .
It is sorting into two distinct identities based on partisan ideology .
Consider the 1960s , for instance .
America went through dramatic social change , but Congress was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why ?
One big reason is that , back then , there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats .
Both tended to pull their parties toward the center , which is where legislation and compromise was born .
Today , that diversity within parties is gone .
American voters are increasingly defining themselves by their partisan identity , which now often correlates with everything from religion to race to age to education .
For example , the Democratic Party is becoming steadily less religious , more racially diverse , younger , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving in precisely the opposite direction .
The result is two clear camps , one liberal and one conservative , with almost nothing in between .
The trend is even more pronounced among the most politically active voters , adding to the growing pull toward the extremes .
That puts a different light on these elections , where a record 94 million Americans have already voted .
How can an increasingly “ sorted ” republic find the common ground to govern ?
Voters will get their say tomorrow .

If you were to reduce the past 30 years of American elections down to a single word, it might well be one you’d never think of: “sorting.” The dominant trend in American politics during that time has been polarization, but that word alone doesn’t capture what’s going on. America is not just becoming more liberal and more conservative. It is sorting into two distinct identities based on partisan ideology.
Consider the 1960s, for instance. America went through dramatic social change, but Congress was still able to cooperate and pass legislation. Why? One big reason is that, back then, there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Both tended to pull their parties toward the center, which is where legislation and compromise was born.
Today, that diversity within parties is gone. American voters are increasingly defining themselves by their partisan identity, which now often correlates with everything from religion to race to age to education. For example, the Democratic Party is becoming steadily less religious, more racially diverse, younger, and better educated. The Republican Party is moving in precisely the opposite direction. The result is two clear camps, one liberal and one conservative, with almost nothing in between. The trend is even more pronounced among the most politically active voters, adding to the growing pull toward the extremes.
That puts a different light on these elections, where a record 94 million Americans have already voted. How can an increasingly “sorted” republic find the common ground to govern? Voters will get their say tomorrow.
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, Voteview.com, Common Ground Committee | Jacob Turcotte/Staff
Why We Wrote This Political polarization can seem all-powerful in Washington these days. But the story of how America got here is the story of voters’ changing views of themselves – and how that has reshaped politics.