- Após o pesadelo,

que tal uma primavera? ***

*** La cornucopia raffigurata in una incisione del sec. XIX *** *** Chico Buarque | Que Tal Um Samba? feat Hamilton de Holanda (Lyric Vídeo) 360.490 visualizações 17 de jun. de 2022 Lyric Vídeo do novo single "Que Tal Um Samba?" de Chico Buarque feat Hamilton de Holanda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yW77WeLYYc ***********************************************

*** Postal assinado por Einstein em 1922 é descoberto em museu ************************************************************************ *** Esses Moços Jamelão Ouça Esses Moços Esses moços , pobre moços Ah se soubessem o que eu sei Não amavam não passavam Aquilo que eu já passei Por meus olhos, por meus sonhos Por meu sangue, tudo enfim É que eu peço a esses moços Que acreditem em mim Se eles julgam Que há um lindo futuro Só o amor Nesta vida conduz Saibam que deixam o céu Por ser escuro E vão ao inferno À procura de luz Eu também tive Nos meus belos dias Essa mania que muito me custou Pois só as mágoas que eu trago hoje em dia E essas rugas O amor me deixou Esses moços , pobre moços Ah se soubessem o que eu sei Ouça Esses Moços Composição: Lupicínio Rodrigues. https://www.letras.mus.br/jamelao/724584/ *******************************************

*** Opinião - Estadão Coluna - Luiz Sérgio Henriques - Estadão *** domingo, 18 de setembro de 2022 Luiz Sérgio Henriques* - Compromisso histórico à brasileira O Estado de S. Paulo O nacional-populismo prospera sobretudo à direita, mas convém evitar a húbris: há na praça versões à esquerda, que só incautos ignoram. Nestas últimas décadas, nem mesmo a mudança tumultuosa da estrutura do mundo a que, atônitos, assistimos pôde cancelar fatos paradigmáticos do passado, particularmente quando redefiniram modos de ser e de pensar a política. Nos anos 1960 ou 1970, para definir desde logo nosso problema, costumava estar na ordem do dia algum tipo de transição ao socialismo, entendido este último, teleologicamente, como a parada final do trem da História. No Chile de Allende, por exemplo, a aposta era seguir viagem pelo caminho das eleições, do Parlamento e demais instituições que muitos de nós, mal-avisados, chamávamos “burguesas”. O contexto, porém, era o da guerra fria, e para adeptos do “realismo político”, como Nixon e Kissinger, uma segunda Cuba nas Américas era algo impensável, ainda quando viesse não pela “luta armada”, o voluntarioso lema da época. A decisão de derrubar Allende viu-se facilitada pelo seu isolamento tanto no Congresso quanto no eleitorado: a maioria relativa de que dispunha não era suficiente para vencer as dificuldades políticas e econômicas da transição. Para não falar da ferocidade com que a direita militar armava o golpe de 1973, neste fatal mês de setembro – bem ao estilo da época. Salvador Allende não era um socialista incendiário, assim como, na Itália, Enrico Berlinguer, notável líder comunista, estava longe de o ser. Ao contrário, diante de seguidos ataques à democracia por extremistas de direita e de esquerda, Berlinguer e o PCI puseram-se obstinadamente em defesa da Constituição antifascista de 1948. Naqueles anos, ademais, viviam uma expectativa que jamais se realizaria, a do sorpasso (ultrapassagem) eleitoral, passando à frente da Democracia Cristã. Em relação a esta, especialmente considerando a figura de Aldo Moro, elaboraram uma estratégia leal e generosa, a que deram o nome de compromisso histórico. Nada de “fagocitar” o partido adversário ou decapitá-lo, mas sim unir forças profundamente enraizadas e buscar convergências que não anulassem as respectivas identidades. Era, na visão de Berlinguer, o caminho real para renovar a sociedade, introduzir elementos de economia programática e enriquecer a democracia a partir de baixo – por que não? –, sem jamais abalar a centralidade do Parlamento. Como tal, o compromisso histórico fracassou. O assassinato de Moro foi apenas um dos sinais deste fracasso. Placas tectônicas começavam a se mexer poderosamente, inviabilizando qualquer hipótese de “via nacional ao socialismo”. O próprio experimento soviético dava sinais crescentes e irreversíveis de declínio, e Gorbachev chegaria tarde demais. Thatcher e Reagan também iriam sinalizar o fim do consenso social-democrata, propondo e impondo as regras de um capitalismo puro e duro. A queda do Muro e a globalização reformulariam dos pés à cabeça os termos da luta por avanços possíveis, num mundo atomizado pelas políticas neoliberais e privado do horizonte socialista. No entanto, há algo no compromisso histórico berlingueriano que nos leva a falar dele como de uma ideia reguladora ainda pertinente. Antes de mais nada, a recusa cabal e pertinaz de dividir a sociedade – qualquer sociedade – em duas metades, a de direita e a de esquerda, inserindo-as, ainda por cima, num confronto destrutivo do tipo amigo e inimigo. Encontros programáticos, possíveis e desejáveis em toda situação normal, são simplesmente indispensáveis nos contextos de risco máximo, quando, por uma série de motivos “estruturais” e “superestruturais”, forças que vegetam à margem vêm a ocupar o centro do palco, arrastam massas fanatizadas e comprometem valores civilizatórios básicos. De fato, este é o caso daquilo que, da Hungria até os Estados Unidos e o Brasil, tem se insinuado sob o rótulo de nacional-populismo. O nacionalismo em questão nega a dimensão global em que se colocam problemas já incontornáveis, como o do clima; e o populismo arremete contra instituições contramajoritárias, em nome de um demos encarnado no homem da Providência. Supostamente acima de tudo e de todos, o demagogo apregoa uma liberdade que desconhece os limites constitucionais que livremente aceitamos. Decerto, o nacional-populismo, que hoje coloca o mundo de ponta-cabeça, prospera sobretudo à direita, mas convém evitar a húbris: há na praça versões à esquerda, que só incautos ignoram. Um compromisso histórico aggiornato terá, pela natureza das coisas, um sentido mais modesto, mas não menos vigoroso. Para uma força de esquerda que, como no Brasil, esteja à frente do processo, trata-se de incorporar estruturalmente o método democrático e explorar, com paciência, as imensas possibilidades que contém – e não é certo que o tenha feito antes. O pré-requisito é ativar uma dialética viva com todas as forças do campo democrático, incluindo os liberais e os muitíssimos conservadores que desconfiam da sereia nacional-populista. Esta é a prova que enfrentamos agora, mas, no fundo, ela sempre recomeça a cada dia – missão de Sísifo, sem cujo cumprimento os tiranos retornam. *Tradutor e ensaísta, é um dos organizadores das obras de Gramsci no Brasil **********************************************************************************

*** domingo, 18 de setembro de 2022 Luiz Carlos Azedo - A violência pode aumentar na reta final do primeiro turno Correio Braziliense Na reta final da campanha eleitoral, clube de tiros estão virando comitês eleitorais e muitos de seus integrantes fazem uso ostensivo de suas armas em eventos públicos A pistola G2C 9mm tem carregadores de 12 munições e uma bala na câmara, para pronto emprego, sendo atualmente a arma compacta de porte velado mais vendida no Brasil. Custa em torno de R$ 3,8 mil no mercado legal de armas e pode ser comprada pela internet, parcelada em até 12 vezes no cartão de crédito. Nos Estados Unidos, custa US$ 200, pouco mais de R$ 1 mil. Quase todo bolsonarista raiz que se preza tem uma arma: as mais populares são as pistolas Taurus da linha G, a arma mais vendida no mundo. Considerando o repasse da inflação, a receita da Taurus com a venda de armas cresceu 47,4% no primeiro semestre deste ano em relação ao mesmo período do ano passado. Sua participação no mercado brasileiro de armas passou de 21,3%, no primeiro semestre de 2021, para 28,6%. Foram 186 mil armas vendidas no Brasil de janeiro a junho, um aumento de 17,7% em base anual. A Taurus produziu 1,1 milhão de armas no primeiro semestre deste ano, sendo 702 mil na fábrica brasileira, um aumento de 1,7% em relação a igual intervalo de 2021. A receita líquida da empresa alcançou R$ 1,3 bilhão de janeiro a junho, um aumento de 9,2% ante mesmo intervalo de 2021. Os irmãos Flávio, Eduardo e Carlos Bolsonaro, senador pelo Rio, deputado federal por São Paulo e vereador carioca, respectivamente, são lobistas dos fabricantes de armas concorrentes da Taurus. Eduardo Bolsonaro tem conversado com gigantes estrangeiras do mundo dos armamentos e munições, como a alemã SIG Sauer e a italiana Beretta, para abrirem filiais no Brasil. Outras empresas do setor, como a austríaca Glock e a americana Smith & Wesson, também estariam interessadas em investir no país. A política de liberação do porte e uso de armas pelo presidente Jair Bolsonaro transformou o Brasil na fronteira do mercado de armas de pequeno porte para uso individual, em razão da multiplicação dos clubes de tiro. “É uma situação que está fora do controle”, segundo o jornalista Leonardo Cavalcanti (SBTNews), pesquisador junto ao Núcleo de Estudos sobre Violência e Segurança da Universidade de Brasília (NevisUnB). De agosto de 2011 a julho deste ano, foram concedidas autorizações para 264.129 pessoas comprarem armas e munições, média de 795 por dia. “O número é maior do que os efetivos das Forças Armadas (356 mil) e de policiais militares de todo o país (417 mil). O Brasil tem 700 mil pessoas aptas a andarem armadas, inclusive com armas bem mais potentes, como fuzis”, explica. O Exército não tem informações básicas sobre essas pessoas, como origem, gênero, idade ou renda salarial, no Sistema de Gerenciamento Militar de Armas (Sigma); também não tem acesso ao Sistema Nacional de Informações de Segurança Pública (Infoseg) do Ministério da Justiça, utilizado pela Polícia Federal para checar se as pessoas têm antecedentes criminais. O Estado brasileiro sempre teve dificuldades para exercer o monopólio da força. O conceito tem origem hobbesiana, inspirado na figura do Leviatã, o mito fenício relatado no Livro de Jó: um monstro gigantesco, meio dragão, meio crocodilo, que vivia num lago e tinha como missão defender os peixes mais fracos dos peixes mais fortes. O inglês Thomas Hobbes fez essa analogia em 1651 (Leviatã), para responder a duas questões: como as sociedades foram formadas e como devem ser governadas. É dele a famosa frase em latim “homini lupus homini” (o homem é o lobo do homem), justamente por sermos egoístas e entrarmos em conflito uns com os outros. Radicalização política Apesar de egoístas, porém, temos racionalidade e “medo da morte violenta”. Para Hobbes, era possível abrir mão da liberdade total e fazer um pacto, o “contrato social”, para sair da vida solitária e selvagem — ou seja, do “estado de natureza” — e viver junto, sob um poder soberano, no “estado civil” — isto é, em sociedade. Entretanto, para isso, é preciso um poder que os obrigue a respeitar o contrato. O Estado sozinho, absoluto, não resolve o problema. É preciso garantir liberdade e direitos aos cidadãos contra a “ditadura da maioria”. É aí que John Stuart Mill, no século XIX, ou seja, dois séculos depois, entrou em cena. Em Sobre a Liberdade (1859), Mill resumiu: o Estado deve preservar a autonomia individual e, ao mesmo tempo, evitar a tirania da maioria. Tudo é permitido ao indivíduo, desde que as suas ações não causem danos a terceiros. Todas as pessoas podem desenvolver de maneira autônoma o seu projeto de vida; a sociedade deve proteger a liberdade de indivíduos se desenvolverem de modo autônomo e, em troca, os seus membros não devem interferir nos direitos legais alheios; os danos que são causados a outras pessoas têm como consequência uma punição proporcional. Na reta final da campanha eleitoral, clube de tiros estão virando comitês eleitorais e muitos de seus integrantes fazem uso ostensivo de suas armas em eventos públicos, o que é uma forma de intimidação. Os casos de violência já estavam se multiplicando, principalmente, os feminicídios. A radicalização política também já registra mortes por motivos fúteis. A violência tende a aumentar nas próximas duas semanas que antecedem as eleições de 2 de outubro. Houve reforço até da segurança dos juízes eleitorais. Mesmo os policiais civis e militares, no cumprimento de suas missões, estão com a vida em risco em razão da grande quantidade de armas nas mãos de indivíduos violentos. *******************************************************************************

*** Wikipédia Leipzig – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre *** LIÇÕES DE POLÍTICA E HISTÓRIA 1922-1924 "Pois minha experiência durante a guerra civil me mostrara que nunca se deve julgar um movimento político pelas metas que ele proclama publicamente, e que talvez se esforce sinceramente por atingir, mas apenas pelos meios que ele usa para alcançá-las. A escolha de meios ruins prova que os responsáveis perderam a confiança na força persuasiva de seus argumentos originais." "Bohr me perguntou o que eu recordava da eclosão da guerra, dez anos antes. - Ouvi falar muito daqueles dias - disse-me. - Amigos nossos que viajavam pela Alemanha no início de agosto de 1914, falaram de uma grande onda de entusiasmo, que arrebatava não apenas a nação alemã, mas até as pessoas de fora, cujas emoções, no entanto, eram temperadas pelo horror. Não é curioso que um povo inteiro tenha entrado em guerra tomado por autêntico entusiasmo, quando deveria ter sabido quantos amigos e inimigos essa guerra tragaria, quantas injustiças seriam cometidas por ambos os lados? O senhor consegue explicar isso?" CONTRAPONTO A PARTE E O TODO HEISENBRG,p.60 *******************************************************************

*** Leipzig's great advertisement parade, Leipzig, Germany, 1922. Leipzig's great advertisement parade, Leipzig, Germany, 1922. From Peoples of All Nations, Their Life Today and the Story of Their Past, volume IV: Georgia to Italy, edited by JA Hammerton and published by the Educational Book Company (London, 1922). (Photo by The Print Collector/Print Collector/Getty Images) *** "É nessa mesma carta a Einstein que Born menciona os primeiros trabalhos fundamentais de seus "brilhantes" alunos e dele mesmo sobre a mecânica dos quanta, e escreve a frase bem conhecida sobre Heisenberg (a respeito do que o próprio Born identificará como operadores matriciais): "o novo estudo de Heisenberg, que está no prelo, tem uma aparência mística, mas é certamente exato e profundo".8" Wiener com Albert Einstein em uma viagem de trem On the casual meeting of Norbert Wiener with Albert Einstein during a train trip https://www.scielo.br/j/ss/a/jRR76SJntr8rz8KRYGPC7cr/?lang=pt ****************************************************************

*** Wikimedia Commons File:Leipzig, Sachsen - Turnfest 1922 (Zeno Ansichtskarten).jpg - Wikimedia Commons *******************************

*** DEMOCRACY CHALLENGED ‘A Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy Illustration by Matt Chase ***

*** David Leonhardt *** By David Leonhardt David Leonhardt is a senior writer at The Times who won the Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Great Recession. Sept. 17, 2022 The United States has experienced deep political turmoil several times before over the past century. The Great Depression caused Americans to doubt the country’s economic system. World War II and the Cold War presented threats from global totalitarian movements. The 1960s and ’70s were marred by assassinations, riots, a losing war and a disgraced president. These earlier periods were each more alarming in some ways than anything that has happened in the United States recently. Yet during each of those previous times of tumult, the basic dynamics of American democracy held firm. Candidates who won the most votes were able to take power and attempt to address the country’s problems. The current period is different. As a result, the United States today finds itself in a situation with little historical precedent. American democracy is facing two distinct threats, which together represent the most serious challenge to the country’s governing ideals in decades. The first threat is acute: a growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story The violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress, meant to prevent the certification of President Biden’s election, was the clearest manifestation of this movement, but it has continued since then. Hundreds of elected Republican officials around the country falsely claim that the 2020 election was rigged. Some of them are running for statewide offices that would oversee future elections, potentially putting them in position to overturn an election in 2024 or beyond. “There is the possibility, for the first time in American history, that a legitimately elected president will not be able to take office,” said Yascha Mounk, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University who studies democracy. Thanks for reading The Times. Subscribe to The Times The second threat to democracy is chronic but also growing: The power to set government policy is becoming increasingly disconnected from public opinion. The run of recent Supreme Court decisions — both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular — highlight this disconnect. Although the Democratic Party has won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees seems poised to shape American politics for years, if not decades. And the court is only one of the means through which policy outcomes are becoming less closely tied to the popular will. Editors’ Picks 16 Soups Our Food Staff Cooks on Repeat She’s Come Undone (on Purpose) Will Welch Leads GQ to ‘the New Masculinity’ Continue reading the main story Two of the past four presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote. Senators representing a majority of Americans are often unable to pass bills, partly because of the increasing use of the filibuster. Even the House, intended as the branch of the government that most reflects the popular will, does not always do so, because of the way districts are drawn. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story “We are far and away the most countermajoritarian democracy in the world,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and a co-author of the book “How Democracies Die,” with Daniel Ziblatt. The Times is examining challenges to democratic norms in the United States and around the world. This essay is part of the series. Read more here. The causes of the twin threats to democracy are complex and debated among scholars. The chronic threats to democracy generally spring from enduring features of American government, some written into the Constitution. But they did not conflict with majority opinion to the same degree in past decades. One reason is that more populous states, whose residents receive less power because of the Senate and the Electoral College, have grown so much larger than small states. The acute threats to democracy — and the rise of authoritarian sentiment, or at least the acceptance of it, among many voters — have different causes. They partly reflect frustration over nearly a half-century of slow-growing living standards for the American working class and middle class. They also reflect cultural fears, especially among white people, that the United States is being transformed into a new country, more racially diverse and less religious, with rapidly changing attitudes toward gender, language and more. ***

*** ImageThe attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was the clearest manifestation of the growing movement in the Republican Party to refuse to accept defeat in an election. The attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was the clearest manifestation of the growing movement in the Republican Party to refuse to accept defeat in an election.Credit...Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times *** The economic frustrations and cultural fears have combined to create a chasm in American political life, between prosperous, diverse major metropolitan areas and more traditional, religious and economically struggling smaller cities and rural areas. The first category is increasingly liberal and Democratic, the second increasingly conservative and Republican. The political contest between the two can feel existential to people in both camps, with disagreements over nearly every prominent issue. “When we’re voting, we’re not just voting for a set of policies but for what we think makes us Americans and who we are as a people,” Lilliana Mason, a political scientist and the author of “Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity,” said. “If our party loses the election, then all of these parts of us feel like losers.” ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story These sharp disagreements have led many Americans to doubt the country’s system of government. In a recent poll by Quinnipiac University, 69 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans said that democracy was “in danger of collapse.” Of course, the two sides have very different opinions about the nature of the threat. Many Democrats share the concerns of historians and scholars who study democracy, pointing to the possibility of overturned election results and the deterioration of majority rule. “Equality and democracy are under assault,” President Biden said in a speech this month in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. “We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise.” Many Republicans have defended their increasingly aggressive tactics by saying they are trying to protect American values. In some cases, these claims rely on falsehoods — about election fraud, Mr. Biden’s supposed “socialism,” Barack Obama’s birthplace, and more. In others, they are rooted in anxiety over real developments, including illegal immigration and “cancel culture.” Some on the left now consider widely held opinions among conservative and moderate Americans — on abortion, policing, affirmative action, Covid-19 and other subjects — to be so objectionable that they cannot be debated. In the view of many conservatives and some experts, this intolerance is stifling open debate at the heart of the American political system. The divergent sense of crisis on left and right can itself weaken democracy, and it has been exacerbated by technology. Conspiracy theories and outright lies have a long American history, dating to the personal attacks that were a staple of the partisan press during the 18th century. In the mid-20th century, tens of thousands of Americans joined the John Birch Society, a far-right group that claimed Dwight Eisenhower was a secret Communist. Today, however, falsehoods can spread much more easily, through social media and a fractured news environment. In the 1950s, no major television network spread the lies about Eisenhower. In recent years, the country’s most watched cable channel, Fox News, regularly promoted falsehoods about election results, Mr. Obama’s birthplace and other subjects. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story These same forces — digital media, cultural change and economic stagnation in affluent countries — help explain why democracy is also struggling in other parts of the world. Only two decades ago, at the turn of the 21st century, democracy was the triumphant form of government around the world, with autocracy in retreat in the former Soviet empire, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, South Korea and elsewhere. Today, the global trend is moving in the other direction. In the late 1990s, 72 countries were democratizing, and only three were growing more authoritarian, according to data from V-Dem, a Swedish institute that monitors democracy. Last year, only 15 countries grew more democratic, while 33 slid toward authoritarianism. Some experts remain hopeful that the growing attention in the United States to democracy’s problems can help avert a constitutional crisis here. Already, Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election failed, partly because of the refusal of many Republican officials to participate, and both federal and state prosecutors are investigating his actions. And while the chronic decline of majority rule will not change anytime soon, it is also part of a larger historical struggle to create a more inclusive American democracy. Still, many experts point out that it still not clear how the country will escape a larger crisis, such as an overturned election, at some point in the coming decade. “This is not politics as usual,” said Carol Anderson, a professor at Emory University and the author of the book, “One Person, No Vote,” about voter suppression. “Be afraid.” The Will of the Majority *** Image Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election failed, partly because of the refusal of many Republican officials to participate. Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election failed, partly because of the refusal of many Republican officials to participate.Credit...Saul Martinez for The New York Times *** The founders did not design the United States to be a pure democracy. They distrusted the classical notion of direct democracy, in which a community came together to vote on each important issue, and believed it would be impractical for a large country. They did not consider many residents of the new country to be citizens who deserved a voice in political affairs, including Natives, enslaved Africans and women. The founders also wanted to constrain the national government from being too powerful, as they believed was the case in Britain. And they had the practical problem of needing to persuade 13 states to forfeit some of their power to a new federal government. Instead of a direct democracy, the founders created a republic, with elected representatives to make decisions, and a multilayered government, in which different branches checked each other. The Constitution also created the Senate, where every state had an equal say, regardless of population. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story Pointing to this history, some Republican politicians and conservative activists have argued that the founders were comfortable with minority rule. “Of course we’re not a democracy,” Senator Mike Lee of Utah has written. But the historical evidence suggests that the founders believed that majority will — defined as the prevailing view of enfranchised citizens — should generally dictate national policy, as George Thomas of Claremont McKenna College and other constitutional scholars have explained. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison equated “a coalition of a majority of the whole society” with “justice and the general good.” Alexander Hamilton made similar points, describing “representative democracy” as “happy, regular and durable.” It was a radical idea at the time. For most of American history, the idea has prevailed. Even with the existence of the Senate, the Electoral College and the Supreme Court, political power has reflected the views of people who had the right to vote. “To say we’re a republic not a democracy ignores the past 250 years of history,” Mr. Ziblatt, a political scientist at Harvard University, said. Before 2000, only three candidates won the presidency while losing the popular vote (John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison), and each served only a single term. During the same period, parties that won repeated elections were able to govern, including the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson’s time, the New Deal Democrats and the Reagan Republicans. The situation has changed in the 21st century. The Democratic Party is in the midst of a historic winning streak. In seven of the past eight presidential elections, stretching back to Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory, the Democratic nominee has won the popular vote. Over more than two centuries of American democracy, no party has previously fared so well over such an extended period. Yet the current period is hardly a dominant Democratic age. What changed? One crucial factor is that, in the past, the parts of the country granted outsize power by the Constitution — less populated states, which tend to be more rural — voted in broadly similar ways as large states and urban areas. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story This similarity meant that the small-state bonus in the Senate and Electoral College had only a limited effect on national results. Both Democrats and Republicans benefited, and suffered, from the Constitution’s undemocratic features. Democrats sometimes won small states like Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming in the mid-20th century. And California was long a swing state: Between the Great Depression and 2000, Democratic and Republican presidential candidates won it an equal number of times. That the Constitution conferred advantages on residents of small states and disadvantages on Californians did not reliably boost either party. ***

*** Image Joe Biden campaigning in Los Angeles in March 2020. He went on to win California in the general election by 29 percentage points. Joe Biden campaigning in Los Angeles in March 2020. He went on to win California in the general election by 29 percentage points.Credit...Josh Haner/The New York Times *** In recent decades, Americans have increasingly sorted themselves along ideological lines. Liberals have flocked to large metropolitan areas, which are heavily concentrated in big states like California, while residents of smaller cities and more rural areas have become more conservative. This combination — the Constitution’s structure and the country’s geographic sorting — has created a disconnect between public opinion and election outcomes. It has affected every branch of the federal government: the presidency, Congress and even the Supreme Court. In the past, “the system was still antidemocratic, but it didn’t have a partisan effect,” Mr. Levitsky said. “Now it’s undemocratic and has a partisan effect. It tilts the playing field toward the Republican Party. That’s new in the 21st century.” In presidential elections, the small-state bias is important, but it is not even the main issue. A more subtle factor — the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College in most states — is. Candidates have never received extra credit for winning state-level landslides. But this feature did not used to matter very much, because landslides were rare in larger states, meaning that relatively few votes were “wasted,” as political scientists say. Today, Democrats dominate a handful of large states, wasting many votes. In 2020, Mr. Biden won California by 29 percentage points; New York by 23 points; and Illinois by 17 points. Four years earlier, Hillary Clinton’s margins were similar. Vote Margins by State in Presidential Elections since 1988 198819921996200020042008201220162020 ← More Democratic More Republican → +50% +25% +25% +50% AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Note: Circles are sized by each state’s share of the national population.Sources: Dave Liep's Atlas of U.S. Elections; Edison Research; U.S. Census BureauBy Keith Collins and Ashley Wu *** This shift means that millions of voters in large metropolitan areas have moved away from the Republican Party without having any impact on presidential outcomes. That’s a central reason that both George W. Bush and Mr. Trump were able to win the presidency while losing the popular vote. “We’re in a very different world today than when the system was designed,” said Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California. “The dynamic of being pushed aside is more obvious and I think more frustrating.” Republicans sometimes point out that the system prevents a few highly populated states from dominating the country’s politics, which is true. But the flip is also true: The Constitution gives special privileges to the residents of small states. In presidential elections, many voters in large states have become irrelevant in a way that has no historical antecedent. The Curse of Geographic Sorting ***

*** Image Protesters outside the Supreme Court after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June. If elections reflected popular opinion, Democratic appointees would dominate the court, but it now has a conservative, six-member majority. Protesters outside the Supreme Court after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June. If elections reflected popular opinion, Democratic appointees would dominate the court, but it now has a conservative, six-member majority.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times *** The country’s changing population patterns may have had an even bigger effect on Congress — especially the Senate — and the Supreme Court than the presidency. The sorting of liberals into large metropolitan areas and conservatives into more rural areas is only one reason. Another is that large states have grown much more quickly than small states. In 1790, the largest state (Virginia) had about 13 times as many residents as the smallest (Delaware). Today, California has 68 times as many residents as Wyoming; 53 times as many as Alaska; and at least 20 times as many as another 11 states. Together, these trends mean that the Senate has a heavily pro-Republican bias that will last for the foreseeable future. The Senate today is split 50-50 between the two parties. But the 50 Democratic senators effectively represent 186 million Americans, while the 50 Republican senators effectively represent 145 million. To win Senate control, Democrats need to win substantially more than half of the nationwide votes in Senate elections. This situation has led to racial inequality in political representation. The residents of small states, granted extra influence by the Constitution, are disproportionately white, while large states are home to many more Asian American, Black and Latino voters. Senate and Electoral College Representation Residents of less populated states like Wyoming and North Dakota, who are disproportionately white, have outsize influence. 1 voter in Wyoming 1 voter in North Dakota has similar representation as White White or 6 voters in Connecticut White Black Asian or 7 voters in Alabama White Black or 18 voters in Michigan Hispanic Black Asian White Other or 59 voters in California Hispanic Black Asian White Other Note: Examples are based on ethnic makeup of each state. Pacific Islanders included among Asian voters.Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community SurveyBy Ashley Wu *** In addition, two parts of the country that are disproportionately Black or Latino — Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico — have no Senate representation. Washington has more residents than Vermont or Wyoming, and Puerto Rico has more residents than 20 states. As a result, the Senate gives a political voice to white Americans that is greater than their numbers. The House of Representatives has a more equitable system for allocating political power. It divides the country into 435 districts, each with a broadly similar number of people (currently about 760,000). Still, House districts have two features that can cause the chamber’s makeup not to reflect national opinion, and both of them have become more significant in recent years. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story The first is well known: gerrymandering. State legislatures often draw district boundaries and in recent years have become more aggressive about drawing them in partisan ways. In Illinois, for example, the Democrats who control the state government have packed Republican voters into a small number of House districts, allowing most other districts to lean Democratic. In Wisconsin, Republicans have done the opposite. Because Republicans have been more forceful about gerrymandering than Democrats, the current House map slightly favors Republicans, likely by a few seats. At the state level, Republicans have been even bolder. Gerrymandering has helped them dominate the state legislatures in Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio, even though the states are closely divided. Still, gerrymandering is not the only reason that House membership has become less reflective of national opinion in recent years. It may not even be the biggest reason, according to Jonathan A. Rodden, a political scientist at Stanford University. Geographic sorting is. “Without a doubt, gerrymandering makes things worse for the Democrats,” Mr. Rodden has written, “but their underlying problem can be summed up with the old real estate maxim: location, location, location.” The increasing concentration of Democratic voters into large metro areas means that even a neutral system would have a hard time distributing these tightly packed Democratic voters across districts in a way that would allow the party to win more elections. Instead, Democrats now win many House elections in urban areas by landslides, wasting many votes. In 2020, only 21 Republican House candidates won their elections by at least 50 percentage points. Forty-seven Democrats did. Landslides in 2020 House Elections There were about twice as many districts where a Democratic House candidate won by at least 50 percentage points as there were districts where a Republican candidate won by as much. Dem. Rep. Win Landslide (one candidate won by at least 50 percentage points) Maine N.H. Diana DeGette Colo. District 1 Jesús García Ill. District 4 Jerry Nadler N.Y. District 10 Wash. Mass. Vt. N.Y. N.D. Mont. Mich. Idaho Minn. Conn. R.I. Ore. Wis. Wyo. S.D. Barbara Lee Calif. District 13 Calif. Pa. Neb. Colo. Ohio Ill. N.J. Iowa Ind. Nev. Utah Kan. Md. Ariz. N.M. Mo. W.Va. Del. Ky. Va. Okla. N.C. Ark. Ga. Tenn. Texas Donald Payne Jr. N.J. District 10 Miss. Ala. S.C. La. Alaska Fla. Hawaii Note: Landslides include uncontested elections.Source: Edison ResearchBy Ashley Wu *** Looking at where many of these elections occurred helps make Mr. Rodden’s point. The landslide winners included Representative Diana DeGette in Denver; Representative Jerry Nadler in New York City; Representative Jesús García in Chicago; Representative Donald Payne Jr. in northern New Jersey; and Representative Barbara Lee in Oakland, Calif. None of those districts are in states where Republicans have controlled the legislative boundaries, which means that they were not the result of Republican gerrymandering. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story Again and again, geographic sorting has helped cause a growing disconnect between public opinion and election results, and this disconnect has shaped the Supreme Court, as well. The court’s membership at any given time is dictated by the outcomes of presidential and Senate elections over the previous few decades. And if elections reflected popular opinion, Democratic appointees would dominate the court. Every current justice has been appointed during one of the past nine presidential terms, and a Democrat has won the popular vote in seven of those nine and the presidency in five of the nine. Yet the court is now dominated by a conservative, six-member majority. Presidential Appointments of Supreme Court Justices Republican Democratic Supreme Court appointments Presidential election winners Popular vote Electoral College Party that nominated a justice 1988 Bush Bush David H. Souter (until 2009) 1990 Clarence Thomas 1991 1992 Ruth Bader Ginsburg (until 2020) 1993 Clinton Clinton Stephen G. Breyer (until 2022) 1994 1996 Clinton Clinton 2000 Bush Gore 2004 John G. Roberts Jr. 2005 Bush Bush Samuel A. Alito Jr. 2006 2008 Sonia Sotomayor 2009 Obama Obama Elena Kagan 2010 2012 Obama Obama 2016 Neil M. Gorsuch 2017 Clinton Trump 2018 Brett M. Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett 2020 2020 Biden Biden Ketanji Brown Jackson 2022 Note: David Souter retired in 2009; Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020; and Stephen Breyer retired in 2022.Source: U.S. Supreme CourtBy Ashley Wu *** There are multiple reasons (including Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision not to retire in 2014 when a Democratic president and Senate could have replaced her). But the increasingly undemocratic nature of both the Electoral College and Senate play crucial roles. Mr. Trump was able to appoint three justices despite losing the popular vote. (Mr. Bush is a more complex case, having made his court appointments after he won re-election and the popular vote in 2004.) Similarly, if Senate seats were based on population, none of Mr. Trump’s nominees — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — would likely have been confirmed, said Michael J. Klarman, a law professor at Harvard. Senate Republicans also would not have been able to block Mr. Obama from filling a court seat during his final year in office. Even Justice Clarence Thomas’s 1991 confirmation relied on the Senate’s structure: The 52 senators who voted to confirm him represented a minority of Americans. The current court’s approach has magnified the disconnect between public opinion and government policy, because Republican-appointed justices have overruled Congress on some major issues. The list includes bills on voting rights and campaign finance that earlier Congresses passed along bipartisan lines. This term, the court issued rulings on abortion, climate policy and gun laws that seemed to be inconsistent with majority opinion, based on polls. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story “The Republican justices wouldn’t say this and may not believe it,” Mr. Klarman said, “but everything they’ve done translates into a direct advantage for the Republican Party.” In response to the voting rights decision, in 2013, Republican legislators in several states have passed laws making it more difficult to vote, especially in heavily Democratic areas. They have done so citing the need to protect election security, even though there has been no widespread fraud in recent years. For now, the electoral effect of these decisions remains uncertain. Some analysts point out that the restrictions have not yet been onerous enough to hold down turnout. In the 2020 presidential election, the percentage of eligible Americans who voted reached the highest level in at least a century. Other experts remain concerned that the new laws could ultimately swing a close election in a swing state. “When you have one side gearing up to say, ‘How do we stop the enemy from voting?’ that is dangerous to a democracy,” Ms. Anderson, the Emory professor, said. An upcoming Supreme Court case may also allow state legislatures to impose even more voting restrictions. The court has agreed to hear a case in which Republican legislators in North Carolina argue that the Constitution gives them, and not state courts, the authority to oversee federal elections. In recent years, state courts played an important role in constraining both Republican and Democratic legislators who tried to draw gerrymandered districts that strongly benefited one party. If the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Legislature, gerrymandering might increase, as might laws establishing new barriers to voting. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story Amplifying the Election Lies ***

*** Image Nearly 70 percent of Republican voters say that Mr. Biden did not win the 2020 election legitimately, according to polls. Nearly 70 percent of Republican voters say that Mr. Biden did not win the 2020 election legitimately, according to polls.Credit...Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times *** If the only challenges to democracy involved these chronic, long-developing forces, many experts would be less concerned than they are. American democracy has always been flawed, after all. But the slow-building ways in which majority rule is being undermined are happening at the same time that the country faces an immediate threat that has little precedent. A growing number of Republican officials are questioning a basic premise of democracy: That the losers of an election are willing to accept defeat. State Legislators and Election Lies ***

*** The share of Republican state legislators who have taken steps, as of May 2022, to discredit or overturn the 2020 presidential election results Wisconsin Arizona Georgia 81% 23% 73% Nevada Pennsylvania Michigan 78% 48% 4% Source: A New York Times analysisBy The New York Times *** The roots of the modern election-denier movement stretch back to 2008. When Mr. Obama was running for president and after he won, some of his critics falsely claimed that his victory was illegitimate because he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. This movement became known as birtherism, and Mr. Trump was among its proponents. By making the claims on Fox News and elsewhere, he helped transform himself from a reality television star into a political figure. When he ran for president himself in 2016, Mr. Trump made false claims about election fraud central to his campaign. In the Republican primaries, he accused his closest competitor for the nomination, Senator Ted Cruz, of cheating. In the general election against Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump said he would accept the outcome only if he won. In 2020, after Mr. Biden won, the election lies became Mr. Trump’s dominant political message. His embrace of these lies was starkly different from the approach of past leaders from both parties. In the 1960s, Reagan and Barry Goldwater ultimately isolated the conspiracists of the John Birch Society. In 2000, Al Gore urged his supporters to accept George W. Bush’s razor-thin victory, much as Richard Nixon had encouraged his supporters to do so after he narrowly lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960. In 2008, when a Republican voter at a rally described Mr. Obama as an Arab, Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee and Mr. Obama’s opponent, corrected her. Mr. Trump’s promotion of the falsehoods, by contrast, turned them into a central part of the Republican Party’s message. About two-thirds of Republican voters say that Mr. Biden did not win the 2020 election legitimately, according to polls. Among Republican candidates running for statewide office this year, 47 percent have refused to accept the 2020 result, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story Most Republican politicians who have confronted Mr. Trump, on the other hand, have since lost their jobs or soon will. Of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him for his role in the Jan. 6 attack, for example, eight have since decided to retire or lost Republican primaries, including Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming. “By any indication, the Republican Party — upper level, midlevel and grass roots — is a party that can only be described as not committed to democracy,” Mr. Levitsky said. He added that he was significantly more concerned about American democracy than when his and Mr. Ziblatt’s book, “How Democracies Die,” came out in 2018. Juan José Linz, a political scientist who died in 2013, coined the term “semi-loyal actors” to describe political officials who typically do not initiate attacks on democratic rules or institutions but who also do not attempt to stop these attacks. Through their complicity, these semi-loyal actors can cause a party, and a country, to slide toward authoritarianism. That’s what happened in Europe in the 1930s and in Latin America in the 1960s and ’70s. More recently, it has happened in Hungary. Now there are similar signs in the United States. Often, even Republicans who cast themselves as different from Mr. Trump include winking references to his conspiracy theories in their campaigns, saying that they, too, believe “election integrity” is a major problem. Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, for example, have both recently campaigned on behalf of election deniers. In Congress, Republican leaders have largely stopped criticizing the violent attack on the Capitol. Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House leader, has gone so far as to signal his support for colleagues — like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia — who have used violent imagery in public comments. Ms. Greene, before being elected to Congress, said that she supported the idea of executing prominent Democrats. ***

*** Image Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, at a Bikers for Trump rally in May. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, at a Bikers for Trump rally in May.Credit...Nicole Craine for The New York Times *** ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story “When mainstream parties tolerate these guys, make excuses for them, protect them, that’s when democracy gets in trouble,” Mr. Levitsky said. “There have always been Marjorie Taylor Greenes. What I pay closer attention to is the behavior of the Kevin McCarthys.” The party’s growing acceptance of election lies raises the question of what would happen if Mr. Trump or another future presidential nominee tried to replay his 2016 attempt to overturn the result. In 11 states this year, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, a position that typically oversees election administration, qualifies as an “election denier,” according to States United Action, a research group. In 15 states, the nominee for governor is a denier, and in 10 states, the attorney general nominee is. The growth of the election-denier movement has created a possibility that would have seemed unthinkable not so long ago. It remains unclear whether the loser of the next presidential election will concede or will instead try to overturn the outcome. ‘There Is a Crisis Coming’ ***

*** Image If Democrats did control both the White House and Congress, they have signaled that they would attempt to pass legislation to address both the chronic and acute threats to democracy. If Democrats did control both the White House and Congress, they have signaled that they would attempt to pass legislation to address both the chronic and acute threats to democracy.Credit...Oliver Contreras for The New York Times *** There are still many scenarios in which the United States will avoid a democratic crisis. In 2024, Mr. Biden could win re-election by a wide margin — or a Republican other than Mr. Trump could win by a wide margin. Mr. Trump might then fade from the political scene, and his successors might choose not to embrace election falsehoods. The era of Republican election denial could prove to be brief. It is also possible that Mr. Trump or another Republican nominee will try to reverse a close defeat in 2024 but will fail, as happened in 2020. Then, Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, rebuffed Mr. Trump after he directed him to “find 11,780 votes,” and the Supreme Court refused to intervene, as well. More broadly, Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, recently said that the United States had “very little voter fraud.” If a Republican were again to try to overturn the election and to fail, the movement might also begin to fade. But many democracy experts worry that these scenarios may be wishful thinking. Mr. Trump’s most likely successors as party leader also make or tolerate false claims about election fraud. The movement is bigger than one person — and arguably always has been: Some of the efforts to make voting more onerous, which are generally justified with false suggestions of widespread voter fraud, predated Mr. Trump’s 2016 candidacy. To believe that Republicans will not overturn a close presidential loss in coming years seems to depend on ignoring the public positions of many Republican politicians. “The scenarios by which we don’t have a major democracy crisis by the end of the decade seem rather narrow,” Mr. Mounk of Johns Hopkins said. And Mr. Levitsky said, “It’s not clear how the crisis is going to manifest itself, but there is a crisis coming.” He added, “We should be very worried.” The most promising strategy for avoiding an overturned election, many scholars say, involves a broad ideological coalition that isolates election deniers. But it remains unclear how many Republican politicians would be willing to join such a coalition. It is also unclear whether Democratic politicians and voters are interested in making the compromises that would help them attract more voters. Many Democrats have instead embraced a purer version of liberalism in recent years, especially on social issues. This shift to the left has not prevented the party from winning the popular vote in presidential elections. But it has hurt Democrats outside of major metropolitan areas and, by extension, in the Electoral College and congressional elections. If Democrats did control both the White House and Congress — and by more than a single vote, as they now do in the Senate — they have signaled that they would attempt to pass legislation to address both the chronic and acute threats to democracy. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story The House last year passed a bill to protect voting rights and restrict gerrymandering. It died in the Senate partly because it included measures that even some moderate Democrats believed went too far, such as restrictions on voter identification laws, which many other democracies around the world have. The House also passed a bill to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., which would reduce the Senate’s current bias against metropolitan areas and Black Americans. The United States is currently in its longest stretch without having admitted a new state. Democracy experts have also pointed to other possible solutions to the growing disconnect between public opinion and government policy. Among them is an expansion of the number of members in the House of Representatives, which the Constitution allows Congress to do — and which it regularly did until the early 20th century. A larger House would create smaller districts, which in turn could reduce the share of uncompetitive districts. Other scholars favor proposals to limit the Supreme Court’s authority, which the Constitution also allows and which previous presidents and Congresses have done. In the short term, these proposals would generally help the Democratic Party, because the current threats to majority rule have mostly benefited the Republican Party. In the long term, however, the partisan effects of such changes are less clear. The history of new states makes this point: In the 1950s, Republicans initially supported making Hawaii a state, because it seemed to lean Republican, while Democrats said that Alaska had to be included, too, also for partisan reasons. Today, Hawaii is a strongly Democratic state, and Alaska is a strongly Republican one. Either way, the fact that both are states has made the country more democratic. Over the sweep of history, the American government has tended to become more democratic, through women’s suffrage, civil rights laws, the direct election of senators and more. The exceptions, like the post-Reconstruction period, when Black Southerners lost rights, have been rare. The current period is so striking partly because it is one of those exceptions. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story “The point is not that American democracy is worse than it was in the past,” Mr. Mounk said. “Throughout American history, the exclusion of minority groups, and African Americans in particular, was much worse than it is now.” “But the nature of the threat is very different than in the past,” he said. The makeup of the federal government reflects public opinion less closely than it once did. And the chance of a true constitutional crisis — in which the rightful winner of an election cannot take office — has risen substantially. That combination shows that American democracy has never faced a threat quite like the current one. Nick Corasaniti, Max Fisher, Adam Liptak, Jennifer Medina, Jeremy W. Peters and Ian Prasad Philbrick contributed reporting. David Leonhardt writes The Morning, The Times’s flagship daily newsletter. He has previously been an Op-Ed columnist, Washington bureau chief, co-host of “The Argument” podcast, founding editor of The Upshot section and a staff writer for The Times Magazine. In 2011, he received the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. @DLeonhardt • Facebook Give this article More From Democracy Challenged Democratic norms are facing a historic test: Many Americans doubt the results of the 2020 election, and extremism, global authoritarianism and disinformation are on the rise. The Times is examining this landscape of challenges through a range of coverage. The Arizona Republican Party’s Anti-Democracy Experiment: First, it turned against the establishment. Now it has moved to anti-democracy sentiment — the principles, the process and even the word itself. The Fight Over Truth Also Has a Red State, Blue State Divide: Several states run by Democrats are pushing for stiffer rules on the spread of false information, while Republican-run states are pushing for fewer rules. How ‘Stop the Steal’ Captured the American Right: The movement to reinstate President Trump has gone far beyond him — and now threatens the future of American elections. Egypt’s Revolving Jailhouse Door: The New York Times analyzed handwritten lists of names to track the thousands of people trapped in a system where detention can be renewed indefinitely, making a mockery of the legal limits. More in U.S. Patrick Philbin, a former top White House lawyer, is said to have indicated last year that Mr. Trump had taken only nonclassified material in boxes from the White House. Erin Schaff/The New York Times Lawyer Told Archives Last Year That Trump Had No Classified Material Sept. 16 Former President Donald J. Trump held a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., after his aides told the campaign of Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee for Senate, that Mr. Trump wanted to hold an event in the state. Hannah Beier for The New York Times Rally With Trump? Some G.O.P. Candidates Aren’t Thrilled About It. 7h ago Continue reading the main story Eric Merda survived an alligator attack in Southwest Florida this summer. “I challenged the swamp,” he said. “The swamp challenged me back.” Eric Merda Man Tells of Losing His Arm to an Alligator, Followed by Days Lost in a Swamp Sept. 15 Roger Golubski, 69, who has pleaded not guilty to all six federal charges against him, could face life in prison if he is convicted. KMBC Ex-Police Detective Suspected of Preying on Black Women Faces U.S. Charges Sept. 15 Adnan Syed before a court hearing in Baltimore in 2016. Barbara Haddock Taylor/The Baltimore Sun, via Associated Press Prosecutors Move to Overturn Murder Conviction in ‘Serial’ Case Sept. 14 Editors' Picks Prisha Jain, a student at New York University, likes wearing her jeans unbuttoned. Gabby Jones for The New York Times She’s Come Undone (on Purpose) Sept. 16 Pope Francis visiting Iraq in 2021. Ivor Prickett for The New York Times An Epic Struggle for the Soul of Catholicism Sept. 12 Nina Totenberg (left) and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the New York Academy of Medicine in 2018. Rebecca Gibian/Associated Press Nina Totenberg Opens Up About Her Friend Ruth Bader Ginsburg Sept. 13 Most Popular Inside a Republican Superlawyer’s Break With Donald Trump’s G.O.P. Opinion: Why Is There Still No Strategy to Defeat Donald Trump? Warnings From Authors Who Track Domestic Extremism Trump’s Team of Lawyers Marked by Infighting and Possible Legal Troubles of Its Own A Fight Over Nantucket’s Bluff Pits Neighbor Against Neighbor Alan Alda on ‘M*A*S*H’: ‘Everybody Had Something Taken From Them’ Even When Trump Endorses No One, G.O.P. Voters Go Far to the Right A Sober Look at the ‘Cartoonishly Chaotic’ Trump White House Opinion: It Is a Well-Known Truth That Opponents of Democracy Don’t Want You to Have Nice Things ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/us/american-democracy-threats.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfqYhkQVUaBCbIRp8uqxCchPPGxvkwi3r5JzKcQicH0-QPDoGc4AHNea9nLZMV7giseeVgYvUpVeAgiahWJVBsQA2l5cPewMxVfits7IjtVzJzgszGUPVp-2O7K2LjJusmnbfn7kyLbXL4G_CKiQ1XLwpipZRjdFGhyCZIkv-DSrgpr4E4ifQxBZl6RiMCbD2JuZTrCRZ_PtaGa3LM-1V8GrEZCXyIw4nqu_9Xex5SCFnGUHt9_W8_jdtdM9kSN634RAUynPLe16RXsO_ll8ZaM6lyiQ&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare *************************************************