Archives for the month of: November, 2024

The war for Ukrainian freedom grinds on. One of its ugliest chapters is the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children. Thousands have been stolen from their homes and taken to Russia, where they are “adopted” by Russian families.

A new art exhibit in New York City is a stark reminder of their plight:

On a quiet block in Manhattan’s Little Ukraine in the East Village, passers-by are confronted with haunting reminders of war. A 100-foot-long mural shows children’s beds lined with stuffed animals and toys, but no children, symbolizing the thousands of Ukrainian children who were separated or taken from their families since Russia invaded their country in 2022.

The piece, titled “Empty Beds, is an eight-foot-tall photographic installation by the artist Phil Buehler. It was officially introduced on Saturday, when children tugged their parents closer to look at the cuddly toys, while other visitors sat on yellow folding chairs nearby to reflect.

The mural, on display until Nov. 30 at 44 Second Avenue (at East Second Street), uses the visual language of absence to signify the continuing war in Ukraine.

“Bed of Hannah” in “Empty Beds” art show

Adam Kinzinger is a military veteran and was a Republican member of Congress. He voted to impeach Trump, then served on the J6 Commission. His was a reliable Republican vote until January 6, 2021.

He wrote on his blog:

When I decided to stand against Donald Trump, I knew exactly what was coming: backlash, threats, smear campaigns, even the occasional call to “watch my back.” These are the predictable tactics of a bully who’s cornered and desperate to regain control. But here’s the truth — I’m absolutely, resolutely unafraid of Donald Trump. Even after his win. Because I know how this all ends, and it won’t be pretty.

You see, Trump depends on fear. He builds his whole image around being “strong,” “tough,” a supposed champion of the “common man.” But strength doesn’t come from endless bullying, degrading insults, or an ability to throw temper tantrums every time he doesn’t get his way. That’s not strength; it’s weakness. Real strength means standing up for the truth even when it’s hard, even when it costs you. Trump has never had the courage to do that. I have.

Some people might assume I should worry about Trump or fear his so-called “retaliation.” Let’s be honest — what would that even look like? Mean posts on his social media platform? Outrageous nicknames? Maybe a mob of his most ardent supporters trying to intimidate me or my family? Been there, seen it. And I’m still here. Trump’s tactics are predictable, tired, and, frankly, more sad than threatening.

What Trump and his enablers don’t seem to understand is that I’m free from the shackles of political expediency. I didn’t get into this line of work to serve a political cult or bend the knee to any one person. I serve the Constitution and the country I swore an oath to protect. My loyalty is to the principles that make America strong, not to a man who’s turned our democracy into his personal grievance project.

Trump is, at his core, a coward. When things get tough, he runs. He ran from the military, despite claiming he could take on foreign leaders; he’s spent years hiding behind lawyers, attacking the justice system rather than standing tall and defending his actions in court. Time and again, he’s shown that he’s all bark, no backbone.

Contrast that with what I and others in the military have done. We sign up knowing the risks, knowing we could face life-threatening situations, all in the service of a cause greater than ourselves. Trump has never faced a risk he didn’t try to dodge or an obligation he didn’t shirk. I’m proud to stand up against him because he embodies everything I oppose: cowardice, corruption, a complete lack of respect for the rule of law.

I’m not backing down, not because I’m trying to make a name for myself, but because it’s simply the right thing to do. America deserves leaders who aren’t afraid of bullies, who don’t bend to the winds of political fortune, and who don’t take the easy way out. America will reject him again, in due time. It’s a process, but the long memory of history will remember his influence as a flash in a pan. And that starts by showing him, and anyone like him, that fear-mongering is no match for true courage.

Chris Tomlinson, a columnist for the Houston Chronicle, writes that Trump will break the economy unless he breaks five of his campaign promises. Fat chance.

The U.S. voter will soon see what happens when President-elect Donald Trump’s hyperbole meets reality.

The former and future president made a lot of big promises during his campaign, from blanket tariffs to mass deportations to budget cuts. Luckily, he broke half his campaign promises during his first term, PolitiFact reported.

For the good of the economy and Texas, here are five promises he needs to forget he ever made.

Blanket tariffs: Global trade is the bedrock of the U.S. economy, with consumers purchasing cheap foreign goods and turning foreign raw materials into high-value products. Trump’s track record proves that tariffs are a tax on American consumers and are not paid by foreign nations or corporations.

“The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades,” the conservative Tax Foundation said.

Trump’s most constrained new tariff proposal would cost American consumers and companies another $524 billion annually, shrink the economy by at least 0.8% and wipe out 684,000 jobs, the foundation calculated. That does not include Trump’s most recent promise to impose 100% tariffs on our largest trading partner, Mexico.

Mass deportations: The U.S. construction and hospitality industries are entirely dependent on undocumented immigrants. Deporting millions of these workers would drive housing costs nationwide through the roof and shutter restaurants and hotels.

If Trump only managed to deport 1.3 million workers by 2028, he would shrink the economy by 1.2%, the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics calculated. If he were wildly successful and deported 8.3 million people, Trump would put the United States into a depression, decreasing economic activity by 7.4%

Inflation Reduction Act repeal: President Joe Biden is proud of his administration’s signature legislation to boost domestic manufacturing and fight climate change. Trump and his ally Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, have promised to roll it back.

The IRA provides hundreds of billions of dollars in credits and grants for renewable energy, clean technology manufacturing, hydrogen development, carbon capture and nuclear power. Federal agencies have awarded $8 billion in grants to Texas alone.

Corporations have invested hundreds of billions more to collect credits and grants. Rolling back the entire act would effectively terminate hundreds of projects creating good jobs nationwide, including Texas projects valued at $8 billion.

Cutting incentives for wind, solar and battery storage, the cheapest methods of new electricity generation, would contradict another of Trump’s promises. Repealing the IRA would prevent him from supplying the “#1 Lowest Cost Energy and Electricity on Earth.”

Affordable Care Act repeal: Trump has never liked Obamacare and promised to replace it with “a concept of a plan” his staff is developing. Congressional Republicans are also excited about rolling back another signature Democratic program.

Obamacare subsidizes health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans, including 2.5 million Texans, most of whom work for employers who do not offer health insurance. The law also protects people with pre-existing conditions and allows parents to keep their kids on the program until they are 26.

Repealing the ACA without a replacement would leave most enrollees without health insurance. Those people would visit health care providers less often, possibly costing the industry 1.2 million jobs, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute calculated.

Private insurers would also increase premiums because more people would rely on free emergency care, forcing hospitals to charge insured people more to make up for the uninsured.

Drastic budget cuts: The president-elect has always promised lower taxes and less government spending. His 2017 tax bill slashed taxes for corporations and the very wealthy, but he failed to cut the budget. Instead, he added $1 trillion to the federal deficit.

Trump’s proposed tax cuts would add $5.8 trillion to the deficit over a decade, according to the Wharton School. He has promised to cut government spending by $1 trillion yearly, while Musk has pledged to find $2 trillion, but they don’t say from what programs.

Trump seems to have forgotten that government spending buys goods and services from companies. Taking that much money away from those businesses will slow the economy.

Even a Republican-controlled Congress will likely block Trump’s most costly promises. Lobbyists will still wield a lot of power on Capitol Hill, and no member wants to explain why investments in their district were canceled.

However, Trump can implement the most dramatic and damaging policies on his own, especially tariffs and immigration enforcement. Hopefully, Trump will surround himself with people who will find ways to break his promises.

Peter Greene asks how teachers can insist on honesty and evidence when the new president exemplifies the success of their opposites. Please open the link and read the article in full.

He writes:

We are already talking about the worst, ugliest, most misogynistic and racist impulses that will be boosted by Trump’s election. But for all of us in general and teachers in particular, I’m concerned about one other feature that will be super-charged by this administration.

We are now fully entered into a post-truth society. Folks voted for a Trump who doesn’t exist to solve problems that aren’t happening.

Yes, I’m solidly on record arguing that there is no such thing as One Truth, but there are truths that have a basis in reality and evidence, and there are views that are based on nothing but fabrication divorced from reality. There’s point of view, and there’s spin, and then there’s just utter reality-divorced bullshit.

Yes, Democrats made all sorts of mistakes; Bernie Sanders pointing out the failure to reach working class people may be on the mark. But to think Trump is the working man’s friend requires a head stuffed firmly in an alternate reality. Treasonous Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election, and to believe otherwise is to accept a big lie. To think he’s some kind of genius requires a stretch of miles and miles and miles. Trump stole classified documents and tried to weasel out of giving them back. He’s a felon, a man found guilty of sexual assault, a serial grifter, a misogynist, a racist, a man whose character so lacking in character and honor that the notion of him as a Christian champion makes no more sense than the idea of a great dane teaching advanced calculus. 

I get that some of his support is transactional, that he is such a weak man that he attracts people who figure he can be used by them for their own gains (e.g. I’d bet that much of his right-wingnut christianist support comes from people who see him as a brick that will open the door for True Believers). It’s a dangerous game, because Trump is in it for Trump, but at least these grifters have a reality-based picture of who Trump is.

But the vast majority of voters appear to have settled for the lies. Exit polls show they decided on issues like the economy, as if Trump’s universally-panned-by-experts plan will “rescue” a post-pandemic economy that is the envy of the rest of the world. They worried about trans athletes (because who wants to live in a country where you can’t harass young trans persons). And they believe in his victimhood, the idea that all these court cases and charges and all the rest are just Democrats “persecuting” the man who has “give up so much for this country.” 

Trump voters could overlook his flaws because they were standing atop a mountain of lies. 

And one lesson from the campaign is that disinformation works, that alternate facts work. And yes, I understand that this is not exactly news, but given our hyper-powered media and communications world, I think we’ve entered another level. This is a level where folks can decide that consensus reality, facts, standards, science–none of it– requires even lip service. 

I worried about this in 2016. Never mind the public examples being set about propriety and basic kindness– how do you teach when the nation’s leaders demonstrate that facts are for suckers. Make up your own and just keep repeating them. And it was bad back then, but it feels so much worse this time. The first Trump administration felt like a trial balloon, a first shot at pushing the limits of anti-factualism. But now they can look back at some of the biggest lies ever pushed on the country and see that not only were there no negative consequences, they have been rewarded for it.

There is no need to even try to be tethered to reality. Just pick what you wish was true, and sell it. It’s an epistemological collapse, a suspension of any need to have a path to knowledge, because there is nothing to know except what you (or dear leader) wants to know. 

Also, these are a lot of fancy ways to describe a simple thing– a lie.

In this context, teaching about things like finding text evidence to support an opinion seems quaint. Why discuss whether or not a body of Core Knowledge matters when knowledge itself has been cut loose? Why have reading wars about how to decode and define words when only suckers believe that words have meanings? Why worry about teaching scientific method and how to support an idea when it’s obviously simpler to just make up whatever you want to make up?

The answer of course is that all these things are doubly necessary in times like these, that society needs people raised and taught to function in reality based on real things. The Work of educators is now more important than ever.

To read more, open here.

I realize this is a dangerous question to raise but I can’t help but raise it. I expect I’ll be swamped with vicious comments by Trumpers. I can live with that.

Did Putin rig the election??

I don’t have a smoking gun. I don’t have evidence.

I have questions and concerns. For now, I still have free speech.

Yesterday the New York Times published an article about Russia’s interference in the election to help Trump, and it said that they don’t bother anymore to cover their tracks. Putin “joked” that he endorsed Kamala but he was all in for his good friend Trump.

In the final days before Tuesday’s vote, Russia abandoned any pretense that it was not trying to interfere in the American presidential election.

The Kremlin’s information warriors not only produced a late wave of fabricated videos that targeted the electoral process and the Democratic presidential ticket but also no longer bothered to hide their role in producing them.

Writing in The Intercept, James Risen warned that Putin would pull out all the stops in his efforts to help elect Trump. Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire, and Trump won’t stand in his way. Risen wrote a few days before the election:

Putin’s ambitions require that he makes certain that the United States doesn’t try to stop him from rebuilding his empire. So he has sought to aid Trump, who has created damaging political chaos in America and who opposes U.S. involvement in NATO and Ukraine and who has proven to be easily manipulated by the Russian dictator.

Leading Russian ideologues have crowed about “their” victory, according to the Washington Post:

“We have won,” said Alexander Dugin, the Russian ideologue who has long pushed an imperialist agenda for Russia and supported disinformation efforts against Kamala Harris’s campaign. “ … The world will be never ever like before. Globalists have lost their final combat,” he wrote on X.

Trump warned repeatedly that the election would be rigged.

Was it?

We know that Putin wanted Trump to win.

We know that Russia was helping Trump before the election.

We know that Putin had more riding on the outcome of this election than anyone in the world, including Trump.

We know that Putin is ruthless.

We know that Putin’s biggest headache is Ukraine.

We know that Trump has promised to abandon Ukraine.

We can expect that Trump will lift the economic sanctions on Russia.

We know that Russia has highly advanced technological capacity.

Does it make sense that Trump’s rabid base is now a majority of voters?

Does it make sense that Kamala Harris received 10-15 million fewer votes than Biden?

Does it make sense that the gender gap shrank this year, post-Dobbs?

Does 2+2=4?

Glenn Kessler is the fact checker for The Washington Post. He describes what it is like to check the nation’s most notorious prevaricator.

Kessler writes:

In my 14 years as The Washington Post Fact Checker, nine have been devoted to dissecting and debunking claims made by Donald Trump. Indeed, no person has been fact-checked more often than Trump, as he has bested or outlasted foes — Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris — who drew their share of fact checks. And no other person has consistently earned Four Pinocchios — the badge of a committed liar — day after day, week after week.


I first covered Trump as a business reporter in the 1980s, so I was very familiar with his long history of exaggeration and bravado when he burst onto the political stage in 2015 (not counting his brief flirtation with the Reform Party in 2000). “Businessman Donald Trump is a fact checker’s dream … and nightmare,” I wrote in the fact check of his speech announcing that he would seek the presidency.


Now, he has convincingly won a second term via the electoral college and is even on track for the first time in three tries to win the popular vote. After his first two races, I wrote analyses that, in retrospect, misjudged the Trump phenomenon.

In 2016, I noted that “based only on anecdotal evidence — emails from readers — one reason that Trump’s false statements may have mattered little to his supporters is because he echoed things they already believed.” But I expressed hope that “now that Trump will assume the presidency, he may find that it is not in his interest to keep making factually unsupported questions.”

As an example, I noted that during the campaign he had claimed that the unemployment rate was 42 percent, rather than the 5 percent in official statistics. I suggested that he might find himself embarrassed to be contradicted by the official data once he took office.


I was wrong. He embraced the numbers as his own — and then bragged that he had created the greatest economy in American history, even though he had inherited it from Barack Obama.
When Trump was defeated in 2020, my analysis carried a headline that is embarrassing in retrospect: “Fact-checking in a post-Trump era.” I wrote that “his defeat by Democrat Joe Biden suggests that adherence to the facts does matter.”


The Fact Checker documented more than 30,000 false or misleading claims that Trump made during his presidency. Indeed, through that term, Trump was the first president since World War II to fail to ever win majority support in public opinion polls. A key reason was that relatively few Americans believed he was honest and trustworthy, an important metric in Gallup polls. Gallup has described this as “among his weakest personal characteristics.”

As evidence that Trump was hurt by falsehoods, I pointed to Biden’s narrow victories in Arizona and Georgia: “It’s quite possible that at least 9,000 people in Arizona and 5,000 in Georgia were upset enough at Trump’s continued false attacks on native sons Sen. John McCain (R) and Rep. John Lewis (D), even after they died, that they decided to support Biden over Trump.”

The essay appeared before Trump embarked on a months-long campaign to claim that Biden won only through election fraud — a lie debunked in court ruling after court ruling. The Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, inspired by his rhetoric, appeared to be an indelible stain. Yet from 2020 on, Trump used his false claim to maintain his Republican support and build a base for his comeback.


In this election campaign, Trump once again resorted to false claims and sometimes outrageous lies, especially on immigration and the economy. He rode a wave of discontent about inflation — a problem in every industrialized country after the pandemic — to falsely claim that the economy was a disaster, despite relatively low unemployment, falling inflation and strong growth.


Last month, the Economist magazine published a cover story declaring that the U.S. economy was “the envy of the world.” Yet exit polls show that two-thirds of voters said the economy was in bad shape.


I do not write fact checks to influence the behavior of politicians; I write fact checks to inform voters. What voters — or politicians — do with the information in the fact checks is up to them.

Trump certainly benefits from an increasingly siloed information system — a world in which people can set their social media feeds or their television channel so they receive only information that confirms what they already believe. It’s perhaps not an accident that Trump’s rise in politics coincides with the rise of social media, which he adeptly used to first attract attention by elevating (false) questions about Obama’s birth certificate.


In this campaign, Trump made many promises that will be difficult to achieve, such as reducing the national debt and cutting energy prices in half. He also said he would reduce inflation, though that’s already been mostly achieved, and many economists say his plan to impose large tariffs on imported goods might spark inflation again.


No matter what happens, or how many fact checks are written, this time I won’t doubt his ability to convince his supporters that it’s all good news — or that the problem is the fault of someone else, facts notwithstanding.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abandoned his independent campaign and endorsed Trump, Trump offered him any job he wanted. He wanted a role in public health.

The New York Times reported:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who President-elect Donald J. Trump has suggested would have a “big role” in his second administration, wasted no time laying out potential public health measures he would oversee if given the chance.

Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer who has no medical or public health degrees and has promoted anti-vaccine conspiracies for years, told NBC News on Wednesday that he would not “take away anybody’s vaccines,” but that he wanted Americans to be informed with the “best information” available so they “can make individual assessments about whether that product is going to be good for them.”

“People ought to have choice,” he said, adding that he has “never been anti-vaccine.”

Mr. Kennedy has been a prominent critic of the childhood vaccination schedule and has frequently linked some vaccines to autism and other health issues. Studies have long shown no such connection.

On the topic of adding fluoride to drinking water, which helps to protect teeth, Mr. Kennedy said the mineral was “lowering I.Q. in our children,” despite decades’ worth of studies that show its efficacy and safety.

“I think fluoride is on its way out,” he said. “I think the faster that it goes out, the better. I’m not going to compel anybody to take it out, but I’m going to advise the water districts about their legal liability.”

The treatment of public water with small amounts of fluoride has been widely hailed as one of the most important public health interventions of the past century; the American Dental Association has said that it reduces dental decay by at least 25 percent.

Mr. Kennedy also said that if he were given a position in Mr. Trump’s administration, he would focus on eliminating corruption at public health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some departments, including those focused on nutrition, “have to go,” he told NBC. “They’re not protecting our kids.”

“Once Americans are getting good science and allowed to make their own choices, they’re going to get a lot healthier,” he added.

As president, Mr. Trump would have only limited authority to make some of these changes, and some would need congressional approval. But on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump said he would let Mr. Kennedy “go wild on health.”

“I want to be in the White House, and he has assured me that I’m going to have that,” Mr. Kennedy said this week.

Remy Tumin is a reporter for The Times covering breaking news and other topics. More about Remy Tumin

Colorado voters rejected a proposal that was likely to protect school vouchers.

Colorado Public Radio reported:

It’s looking like Coloradans have rejected an effort to enshrine school choice in the state Constitution. 

As of 9:45 p.m., Amendment 80 was losing, with 52 percent opposed to 48 percent in support. This measure, which would have been the first of its kind in the nation, needs 55 percent of the vote to go into the state constitution.

It would have added language stating each “K-12 child has the right to school choice” and that “parents have the right to direct the education of their children.” It explicitly named charters, private schools, home schools and “future innovations in education” as options guaranteed by the state constitution.

Opponents celebrated the amendment’s apparent defeat.

“We find it really encouraging that people understand what this ballot measure was really trying to do, which was to create a pathway for a private school voucher system,” said Kevin Vick, president of the Colorado Education Association. “And we’re also really encouraged that Colorado voters really value public schools and don’t want to see that happen.”

A legislative analysis concluded that the measure would have no immediate impact on education in Colorado but could have opened the door to future changes to laws and funding for education.

Vick said the vagueness of the measure would have created a “legal quagmire,” which he said, in a worst-case scenario could have meant millions of dollars taken out of the public education system. 

The battle over the measure drew millions of dollars from both sides and complaints against proponents alleging deceptive campaign practices. Amendment 80 was a nuanced ballot issue and difficult for many to understand.

When Denver voter Kyle Slusher first read Amendment 80, he thought giving children options would be a good thing. 

“But if it is actually just creating a lane for private schools to take from public school funding, that’s not obviously something that needs to be occurring,” he said.

After doing more research he changed his mind and voted “no.”

Advance Colorado, a conservative action committee that doesn’t disclose its donors, proposed the amendment. They argued Amendment 80 would protect families’ right to choose the school — public, private or home school — that they deem is the best fit for their child. It was also backed by Ready Colorado, the Colorado Catholic Conference and the Colorado Association of Private Schools.

The measure was opposed by a coalition that included the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado PTA, the Christian Home Educators of Colorado, Colorado Democrats, Stand for Children, the ACLU Colorado and others.

School choice is popular in Colorado, with nearly 40 percent of public school students choosing a school outside their assigned neighborhood school. The 30-year-old school choice law has bipartisan support. Critics of the measure argued that the constitutional amendment wasn’t needed because laws giving Coloradans the right to attend the school of their choice for free already exist.

But proponents worried about what they said were increasing attempts to erode choice by local school boards, the state legislature and the State Board of Education. Proponents said Amendment 80 would be a backstop to any legislative attempt to reverse decades of bipartisan work to expand choice for students.

Voters in Nebraska voted against using public funds to pay for private schools.

LINCOLN — Voters on Tuesday resoundingly rejected Nebraska’s new school voucher or scholarship program, steering public dollars spent to public schools.

Supporters of using state tax dollars to offset the costs of a private K-12 education have argued that families unhappy with their public schools need more options.

But rural and urban supporters of public schools, the Nebraska State Education Association and private foundations supporting public schools won the day.

Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, said he was proud to see right- and left-leaning counties agree that vouchers were the wrong choice.

“It confirms what we knew, the majority of Nebraskans don’t want public dollars going to private schools,” Royers said. “What really stood out to me is the consistency.”

Royers hopes state senators move on

Royers said he is hopeful that state senators will follow the will of the voters and move onto other more pressing issues in education that teachers and parents can work on together.

Support Our Schools argued that diverting even small amounts of public money toward private K-12 schools with a scholarship program or vouchers risked long-term support for public education.

They pointed to the experiences in other states with voucher programs, including neighboring Iowa, which has seen the national rankings of its public schools slide since that program began.

They argued that school choice programs typically end up largely benefiting the people already making the choice to send their children to private schools.

And they said such programs risked creating greater concentrations of poverty in some schools by draining them of students who often act as stabilizing force

Everyone knew it would be a close election. Few anticipated Trump’s sweeping victory over Kamala Harris. The New York Times editorial board endorsed Kamala Harris. This is their next-day reaction.

By 

American voters have made the choice to return Donald Trump to the White House, setting the nation on a precarious course that no one can fully foresee.

The founders of this country recognized the possibility that voters might someday elect an authoritarian leader and wrote safeguards into the Constitution, including powers granted to two other branches of government designed to be a check on a president who would bend and break laws to serve his own ends. And they enacted a set of rights — most crucially the First Amendment — for citizens to assemble, speak and protest against the words and actions of their leader.

Over the next four years, Americans must be cleareyed about the threat to the nation and its laws that will come from its 47th president and be prepared to exercise their rights in defense of the country and the people, laws, institutions and values that have kept it strong.

It can’t be ignored that millions of Americans voted for a candidate even some of his closest supporters acknowledge to be deeply flawed — convinced that he was more likely to change and fix what they regarded as the nation’s urgent problems: high prices, an infusion of immigrants, a porous southern border and economic policies that have flowed unequally through society. Some cast their votes out of a profound dissatisfaction with the status quo, politics or the state of American institutions more broadly.

Whatever drove this decision among these voters, however, all Americans should now be wary of an incoming Trump administration that is likely to put a top priority on amassing unchecked power and punishing its perceived enemies, both of which Mr. Trump has repeatedly vowed to do. All Americans, regardless of their party or politics, should insist that the fundamental pillars of the nation’s democracy — including constitutional checks and balances, fair-minded federal prosecutors and judges, an impartial election system and basic civil rights — be preserved against an assault that he has already begun and has said he would continue.

At this point, there can be no illusions about who Donald Trump is and how he intends to govern. He showed us in his first term and in the years after he left office that he has no respect for the law, let alone the values, norms and traditions of democracy. As he takes charge of the world’s most powerful state, he is transparently motivated only by the pursuit of power and the preservation of the cult of personality he has built around himself. These stark assessments are striking in part because they are held not just by his critics but also by those who served most closely with him.

We are a nation that has always emerged from a crucible with its ideals intact and often toughened and sharpened. The institutions of our government, hardened by nearly 250 years of disputation, turmoil, assassinations and wars, held firm when Mr. Trump assailed them four years ago. And Americans know how to counter Mr. Trump’s worst instincts — actions that were unjust, immoral or illegal — because they did so, over and over, during his first administration. Civil servants, members of Congress, members of his own party and people he appointed to high office often stood in the way of the former president’s plans, and other institutions of our society, including the free press and independent law enforcement agencies, held him accountable to the public.

Mr. Trump and his movement have all but taken over the Republican Party. Yet it is also important to remember that Mr. Trump can’t run for another term. From the day he enters the White House, he will be, in effect, a lame-duck president. The Constitution limits him to two terms. Congress has the power — and for some ambitious Republicans, perhaps the political incentive — to set a course away from Mr. Trump’s antidemocratic agenda, if it chooses to pursue it.

Governors and legislatures across the nation have spent months shoring up their state laws and Constitutions to protect civil rights and liberties, including access to reproductive and gender-affirming health care. Even states that voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump, including Kentucky, Ohio and Kansas, have rejected the most extreme positions on abortion. Other institutions of American civil society will play a crucial role in challenging the Trump administration in the courts, in our communities and in the protests that are sure to return.

The rest of the world, too, has no illusions about the leader who will soon again represent the United States on the world stage. The countries of the NATO alliance were shocked, during the first Trump administration, by his willingness to undermine that long and valuable partnership. But European nations, defying Mr. Trump’s predictions, not only came together with the United States in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but also expanded their ranks right up to Russia’s border.

For the Democratic Party, rear-guard action as the political opposition will not be enough. The party must also take a hard look at why it lost the election. It took too long to recognize that President Biden was not capable of running for a second term. It took too long to recognize that large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters, including some of the most loyal supporters of their party. And Democrats have struggled for three elections now to settle on a persuasive message that resonates with Americans from both parties who have lost faith in the system — which pushed skeptical voters toward the more obviously disruptive figure, even though a large majority of Americans acknowledge his serious faults. If the Democrats are to effectively oppose Mr. Trump, it must be not just through resisting his worst impulses but also by offering a vision of what they would do to improve the lives of all Americans and respond to anxieties that people have about the direction of the country and how they would change it.

The test for members of this new Congress will begin soon after they take their oath. The president-elect has promised to surround himself in his second term with enablers prepared to pledge loyalty to him, who will be willing to do whatever he commands. But a president needs the Senate to approve many of those appointments. Senators can stop the most extreme or unqualified candidates from taking cabinet positions like defense secretary and attorney general, as well as seats on the Supreme Court and the federal bench. They can act to keep clearly unfit candidates from holding any powerful position. The Senate did that in 2020, when it blocked Mr. Trump’s attempts to seat unqualified people on the board of the Federal Reserve, and the chamber should not hesitate to do so again.

Perhaps the most important responsibility lies with all of those who will serve in a second Trump administration. Those he appoints as attorney general, as secretary of defense and to other top leadership roles should expect that he may ask them to carry out illegal acts or violate their oaths to the Constitution on his behalf, as he did in his first term. We urge them to recognize that whatever pledge of loyalty he may demand, their first loyalty is to their country. Standing up to Mr. Trump is possible, and it is the duty of every American public servant when appropriate.

But the final responsibility for ensuring the continuity of America’s enduring values lies with its voters. Those who supported Mr. Trump in this election should closely observe his conduct in office to see if it matches their hopes and expectations, and if it does not, they should make their disappointment known and cast votes in the 2026 midterms and in 2028 to put the country back on course. Those who opposed him should not hesitate to raise alarms when he abuses his power, and if he attempts to use government power to retaliate against critics, the world will be watching.

Benjamin Franklin famously admonished the American people that the nation was “a republic, if you can keep it.” Mr. Trump’s election poses a grave threat to that republic, but he will not determine the long-term fate of American democracy. That outcome remains in the hands of the American people. It is the work of the next four