Connect with us


On Politics: We Have a Deal – The New York Times



Good morning and welcome to On Politics, a daily political analysis of the 2020 elections based on reporting by New York Times journalists.

Sign up here to get On Politics in your inbox every weekday.

  • Need evidence that the coronavirus is forcing us to appeal to our better natures? Just look in one of the unlikeliest places on earth: the United States Capitol. Early Wednesday morning, the White House and Senate announced that they had reached a deal on a roughly $2 trillion stimulus bill, after Republicans agreed to add oversight requirements to a $500 billion corporate aid fund. Nothing has been voted on quite yet, but officials say that can happen within the week. The bill arrives after weeks of disagreement — over how to contain the virus, what to call it and how bad a threat it poses. But for the moment, the tune has changed. Larry Kudlow, the White House’s top economic adviser, called this “the single largest Main Street assistance program in the history of the United States.”

  • And President Trump continues to argue for accelerating the return to business as usual. On Tuesday he said that he “would love to have the country opened up, and just raring to go, by Easter,” contrary to top health officials’ warnings that this would be far too quick, and would endanger more lives. Until this month, the economy was Trump’s biggest argument for re-election; now, unemployment could rise to one-quarter of the working population. “I gave it two weeks,” Trump said at a town-hall-style event hosted by Fox News on Tuesday, referring impatiently to the partial economic shutdown. “We can socially distance ourselves and go to work.” But at a news conference later that day, his tone softened, and he said his priority was Americans’ health and safety.

  • Standing beside the president at that news conference, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, offered a softer version of the Trump approach. Fauci suggested that perhaps certain parts of the country with low incidences of the virus could be restriction-free, while more virus-prone areas kept a shutdown in place. The hardest-hit area right now is New York City, which is being treated as an epidemiological hot zone; more than 25,000 cases of the virus have been documented in the state, with a vast majority of those occurring in the city and surrounding areas. The Trump administration on Tuesday advised anyone leaving New York City to self-quarantine for 14 days.

  • America, meet Dan Patrick, your first national martyr of economics. Yesterday, we told you how Patrick, the lieutenant governor of Texas and his state’s chairman for the Trump campaign, supported the president’s notion to restart the economy far ahead of the dates advised by medical professionals. But on Tuesday, Patrick, 69, went further, saying that older people like himself might be willing to die to get the economy rolling again. “No one reached out to me and said, ‘As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival, in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’ And if that’s the exchange, I’m all in,” Patrick said.

President Trump participated in a Fox News virtual town-hall-style event from the Rose Garden of the White House on Tuesday.

With the coronavirus pushing back still more of the presidential primary race, June 2 has emerged as a newly all-important day.

Ten states and the District of Columbia are now planning to hold their primary elections then, including Ohio and New Jersey, the seventh and eighth most delegate-rich states on the Democratic primary calendar. That’s a very late date, just one week before the cutoff mandated by the Democratic National Committee.

Could June 2 now become Bernie Sanders’s last stand? And what would it mean for unity at the convention among the Democrats if competitive primary contests are still happening just over a month before?

Trip Gabriel covered the latest calendar shift-around (read his excellent story here), and he answered a few bonus questions over email for the newsletter.

Why is June 2 such a popular date on the Democratic primary calendar all of a sudden? And do Democratic officials even think it’ll be a firm date, considering how up-in-the-air everything is right now with the virus?

At last count, six states including Pennsylvania, Delaware and Indiana have pushed back their primary elections to June 2, joining New Jersey and several others already scheduled for then. Regarding your other question, they do seem to think it’s firm as of now, but really anything seems possible in this climate. June 2 is just about the last date that primaries could be held under current rules. The Democratic National Committee requires all primaries to take place by June 9, although two states, Kentucky and Louisiana, have already pushed past that day because of fears about the coronavirus.

Joe Biden has struggled to stay in the public eye, now that he’s seen as almost assuredly the Democratic nominee, and the virus has overtaken Americans’ attention. Could you see the lack of primary elections over the coming weeks contributing to that problem for him?

Yes, I think it must be a real concern for the Biden campaign. Some polls have shown Trump’s favorability rising since he has held near-daily appearances at the White House to respond to the virus. An important series of wins in the next month or two would have brought media attention and, maybe more important, added pressure on Bernie Sanders to concede and begin coalescing Democratic support around the presumed nominee.

Speaking of Bernie Sanders, he needs to win by better than three-fifths in the remaining states to actually capture the nomination — which seems like a stretch. But with 11 nominating contests now occurring on a single day, does June 2 present a real opportunity for Sanders to broaden his message and mount a surprise last strike?

Never say never. But the problem for Sanders is that his hoped-for coalition has not materialized. He lost firewall states like Texas and Michigan. It’s hard to imagine Democrats overnight turning away from Biden to embrace an alternative most have made up their minds about.

On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link


India: COVID-19 politics catches apolitical Muslim group – Anadolu Agency




A Muslim missionary group Tablighi Jamaat is in the headlines, as reports of coronavirus or COVID-19 cases, emerging from different parts of the world are being linked to its gatherings.

The Indian government has filed a case against its Chief Maulana Mohammad Saad Kandhalvi for arranging a gathering at its headquarters located in Nizamuddin locality in the heart of capital New Delhi.

A strictly apolitical organization that focuses only on teaching basics of Islam to its followers, has invoked the ire of Indian media, which is projecting Muslims in general and the group in particular as villains in the battle against the spread of the virus.

Even senior leaders of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were quick to denounce the Jamaat for arranging congregation, alleging the act had endangered lives.

Authorities said Kandhalvi had made a mockery of social distancing norms. They said that after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a 21-day lockdown, thousands of people continued to stay inside the Nizamuddin Markaz. But Jamaat office-bearers say that participants of the gathering had no way to go to their homes, because of sudden lockdown.

Kandhalvi, 55, is the great-grandson of Muhammad Ilyas Kandhlavi who founded the group in 1926 in a rural region of Mewat, in the outskirts of Delhi. The organization has millions of members spread in more than 90 countries, including Australia, the U.K., the U.S., Afghanistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

The Jamaat sends followers to different parts of the world, teaching the basics of Islam and rituals to Muslims. Each group consists of eight to 12 people who take care of their expenses and stay in local mosques.

Kandhalvi is considered a scholar of Islam like his great grandfather and his grandfather Mohammad Yusuf.

His brother-in-law and close associate of Tablighi Jamaat, Maulana Zia ul Hasan, told Anadolu Agency: “Jamaat is an apolitical organization and our practices are in strict accordance with the Quran.”

The teachings of Tabligh Jamaat are expressed in “Six Principles”: Kalimah (or the declaration of faith), Salah (prayer), Ilm-o-zikr (knowledge), Ikraam-e-Muslim (respect of muslims), Ikhlas-e-Niyyat (sincerity of intention), and Dawat-o-Tableegh (proselytization).

Split in the group

Although Kandhalvi is a prominent figure with a vast number of his followers, three years ago there was a split and the group was divided into two factions.

Islamic scholars and prominent figures in the group, including Maulana Ibrahim Deol and Maulana Ahmed Lat, left after differences with Kandhalvi.

Deol and Lat, from the western Indian state of Gujarat, are the most well-known faces of the breakaway faction.

There is no figure to prove how many people belong to different groups.

According to critics, the biggest weakness of Kandhalvi’s personality is his “stubbornness”. He does not listen to anyone.

However, Kandhalvi’s brother-in-law Maulana Hasan does not consider him responsible for the split.

“They wanted that there should be different leaders every week. How decisions can be taken if a new leader is changed quickly in a religious organization like this?” he asked.

Regarding Kandhalvi’s “stubborn” nature, his brother-in-law said: “This accusation is not entirely correct. He is a leader of the Jamaat around the world and has to make decisions on many issues.”

When asked about the exact number of Tablighi Jamaat members, Hasan said he has no idea but claimed he read in a book published in the U.K. that there must be around 300 million.

Hasan admits Jamaat has committed mistakes unknowingly. “It would be wrong to say that all this has been done intentionally,” he said.

Anadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS), and in summarized form. Please contact us for subscription options.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


How Chinese Americans Are Living Through a Second Pandemic: Politics Daily – The Atlantic



It’s Friday, April 3. In today’s newsletter: How many Chinese Americans are now living through their second pandemic. Plus: An unhealthy military, struggling to fight COVID-19.



In January, Mei Mei, a real-estate agent in California, shipped N95 masks to her parents in China. When the outbreak started getting worse in the U.S., they considered sending the same masks back to her. (ERIN BRETHAUER)

As coronavirus cases fall in China and soar in the U.S., many Chinese Americans are experiencing a disconcerting case of déjà vu. The social isolation, overwhelmed hospitals, equipment shortages and deaths all feel eerily familiar, after what those with loved ones in China experienced as the disease first peaked in Wuhan.

First-generation immigrants in particular recognized the virus as a serious threat before much of the rest of America. Many other Chinese Americans still have close ties to China, and went from sending N95 masks to their loved ones in China to receiving them from the same family and friends they once considered at a higher risk.

Mei Mei, a real-estate agent in California, has been coordinating donations of masks, face shields, goggles, and other PPE to send to local hospitals. “A lot of the donations I received, they were all still in the original package shipping by their family [from China],” she told my colleague Sarah Zhang.

“You tell people around you, but they didn’t really want to believe that,” Yahua Yu, a Seattle neurologist who attended medical school in Wuhan, told Sarah. “Then you start saying, ‘You will see. You will see.’”

—Kaila Philo




+ The U.S. armed forces are devoted to keeping the American public safe. But the pandemic has military personnel questioning whether they can promise as much for themselves, Kathy Gilsinan reports.

+ Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has used the pandemic to seize absolute power in Hungary indefinitely. Now is the time for widespread scrutiny of the powers that be, Anne Applebaum argues.

+ Americans with disabilities fear that life-saving treatment could be withheld from them should they fall ill with COVID-19, Elaine Godfrey reports.

+ As unemployment skyrockets, President Trump’s reelection chances plummet, Annie Lowrey argues.

You can keep up with The Atlantic’s most crucial coronavirus coverage here.


Today’s newsletter was written by Kaila Philo, a Politics fellow. It was edited by Shan Wang, who oversees newsletters.

You can reply directly to this newsletter with questions or comments, or send a note to

Your support makes our journalism possible. Subscribe here.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to

Kaila Philo is an editorial fellow at The Atlantic.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


The Coronavirus Is Transforming Politics and Economics – The New Yorker



Just like in wartime, people are frightened, public attitudes are changing, and the circumstances necessitate an expanded role for the government, including the Department of the Treasury.Photographer by Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg / Getty

In early March, when health experts warned that the United States risked running short of vital medical supplies, such as masks and ventilators, Donald Trump resisted calls to invoke the Defense Production Act, a 1950 law that gives the President broad powers to prioritize the production of certain items when they become important for national security. As recently as last week, he said, “We don’t need it.” Finally, on Thursday, Trump dropped the pretense and invoked the act to order the suppliers of ventilator manufacturers to give them the components they need to speed up production.

Every day, in ways small and large, the spread of the coronavirus is reshaping American politics. As the death toll rises and the economic fallout spreads, measures once considered unthinkable are being adopted, and not just in the public-health sphere. The $2.2 trillion emergency spending bill that Congress passed last week is worth about ten per cent of G.D.P., and in the coming months we are likely to see another stimulus. This dramatic ramp-up in federal spending is comparable to what happened in 1942, the year after Pearl Harbor, when federal spending as a share of G.D.P. rose by more than ten percentage points.

Trump is no F.D.R., of course, and the virus, unlike the Axis Powers, is an invisible enemy. But the record shows that lethal pandemics and major wars can both have enormous political and economic consequences. In his 2017 opus “The Great Leveler,” Walter Scheidel, a Stanford historian, described them as two of the “four horsemen” that have flattened economic inequality throughout human history. (The other two levelling forces that Scheidel identified were revolutions and state failures.) By decimating the population of medieval Europe, the Black Death made labor scarce, which raised wages and undermined the feudal system. The Civil War abolished slavery and gave rise to the Homestead Act of 1862. The First World War changed the role of women in the economy and paved the way for their political emancipation. The Second World War elevated the role of labor unions and led to the explicit adoption of Keynesian full-employment policies, through the 1946 Employment Act. In Europe, it facilitated the creation of a postwar welfare state, including the National Health Service in Britain.

These violent ruptures lasted years. We can hope that this horrible public-health crisis will also be temporary. And yet, the “wartime” metaphor is in many ways apt. Daily life has been transformed; in just two weeks, almost ten million Americans have filed unemployment claims; and earlier this week a White House task force said the death toll could eventually reach two hundred and forty thousand. Just like in wartime, people are frightened, public attitudes are changing, and the circumstances are necessitating a big expansion of the government’s role.

As of today, tens of millions of small and medium-sized firms will be able to take out bank loans to cover all of their running costs, including wages and rent, for the next eight weeks. If they keep their workers on the books, or rehire the ones they have laid off in the past couple of weeks, the Treasury Department will automatically repay the loans in their entirety. (I wrote about the scheme earlier this week.) The involvement of banks disguises the fact that this is essentially a huge, federal grant program, in which Uncle Sam will be paying the wages of tens of millions of Americans who are nominally private-sector employees. For a conservative Republican Administration, this is a strikingly interventionist move. But it doesn’t cover large corporations, and there are doubts about how quickly and widely the loans will be taken up. (The initial reports aren’t encouraging.) If the jobless count keeps rising, pressure will grow for the Administration to go further and copy the emergency job-protection programs that many European countries have adopted, which encompass businesses of all sizes and involve the government paying them directly.

In other policy areas, too, the Overton window—the range of political options considered acceptable—is expanding. The rapid passage of such a big stimulus, with more to come probably, has punctured the idea, assiduously promoted by deficit hawks, that we “can’t afford” more government programs. Despite all the additional spending, the U.S. Treasury is still able to borrow on remarkably favorable terms: on Thursday, the yield on ten-year Treasury bonds was just 0.63 per cent. And as a backstop, there is the Federal Reserve, with its electronic printing press at the ready.

You don’t have to be a convert to Modern Monetary Theory to have noted the alacrity with which the Fed, over the past month, has purchased and placed on its balance sheet about $1.5 trillion worth of Treasury bonds, commercial paper and bonds issued by large corporations, mortgage-backed securities, auto loans, and credit-card loans. In the coming days, it may well start lending directly to big corporations. As the Fed constructs a comprehensive safety net for Wall Street and corporate America, how can anyone argue against an equally comprehensive approach to safeguarding the welfare of medical workers, delivery-truck drivers, grocery-store employees, and other ordinary Americans on the front line of the battle to contain COVID-19?

The public at large may not grasp some of the financial intricacies, but it surely sees the urgent need for universal health care. According to a poll published by Morning Consult earlier this week, net support for Medicare for All—those who support it minus those who oppose it—has risen by nine points. The virus isn’t just raising support for socialized medicine; it is also undermining the finances of the private-insurance model. Caring for COVID-19 patients can be very costly. If the insurers have to recoup these costs next year, they could raise their 2021 premiums by more than forty per cent, according to an analysis by Covered California, the Golden State’s official health-insurance marketplace. Though Elizabeth Warren is out of the Democratic primary and it would be a huge surprise for Bernie Sanders to secure the Party’s nomination, they could well end up winning the debate over health-care policy.

In another important development, the mass layoffs that have resulted from the virus have also laid bare the iniquities of the gig economy, in which Uber drivers and other online-platform workers, temp-agency workers, and a whole variety of freelancers didn’t have access to health insurance, sick leave, or unemployment insurance. During an appearance on CNBC on Thursday, the investor James Chanos said he was selling short the stocks of gig-economy companies because their business model, which is based on classifying workers as self-employed to avoid giving them costly benefits, is likely to be challenged. “I think both political parties are going to be looking at that pretty hard,” Chanos said.

Much depends on the duration of the pandemic, of course. If the associated shutdowns prove to be reasonably short-lived—two or three months—the economy and the markets could rebound fairly rapidly. Congress and the Fed could wind down their emergency programs, and public attitudes could flip back. But the longer the pandemic goes on, and the deadlier it becomes, the greater the pressure will be for more government activism of various forms.

It would be reassuring to think that this pressure will always lead to necessary actions and progressive policies, but that might be kidding ourselves. A new study of the impact of the 1918 flu pandemic on the U.S. and European countries shows that it led to a decline in social trust. The spread of the virus, the confinement measures taken to counter it, and “rumours about enemy spies spreading the infection beyond the lines as a kind of biological weapon created a climate of suspicion and mistrust,” the authors noted.

With some people already calling for residents of COVID-19 hotspots to be confined to their own areas, and Trump referring to “the China virus,” we are already seeing some echoes of this phenomenon. As the pandemic intensifies, it could lead to rising xenophobia, a further accentuation of regional divides, and even demands for authoritarian remedies, which Trump, having settled into the idea of himself as a wartime leader, might be all too eager to exploit.

That is worst-case speculation. But COVID-19 is shifting the tectonic plates that undergird American politics, and, as with the progress of the virus itself, the range of possible outcomes is wide. It is in such circumstances that history is made, for good or ill.

A Guide to the Coronavirus

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading