Latest news with #DavidLeonhardt
New York Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
‘African American' Is Awkward. It's Time to Use ‘Black.'
In this episode of 'The Opinions,' the linguist and Opinion writer John McWhorter and David Leonhardt, the editorial director of Opinion, debate the politics of how we talk about race and identity and discuss whether 'Latinx' is a thing. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. David Leonhardt: My colleague John McWhorter wrote a fascinating recent column arguing that it's time to retire the term 'African American' and return to using 'Black' loudly and proudly, as John put it. I kept thinking about that article after I read it because it reminded me of so many other debates we have about the politics of language, especially involving questions of identity. John, in addition to writing for Times Opinion, is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University, and he spent years mulling over many of these questions. So I asked him to come on the show this week and talk through a list of hot-button linguistic issues. John, welcome to The Opinions. John McWhorter: Happy to be here, David. Thank you. Leonhardt: You write so much about identity and language and politics. How did you get interested in that intersection? Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
22-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
There Is Hope for Democrats. Look to Kansas.
David Leonhardt, an editorial director for Opinion, talks to the Opinion correspondent Michelle Cottle about her recent reporting trip to Kansas. Cottle argues that Democrats should look to moderate governors like Laura Kelly of Kansas for a playbook. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. David Leonhardt: Democrats are spending a lot of time these days agonizing about what the future of their party should look like. Today we're going to talk about one potential answer. The party's current crop of governors: politicians who have a proven ability to win elections, including some really tough elections, and to govern as well. My colleague Michelle Cottle recently traveled to Kansas to talk with one of the country's most impressive governors. Laura Kelly is a moderate Democrat in her second term. Kansas is so Republican that it hasn't elected a Democratic senator since 1932. It's so Republican that there is a famous book, 'What's the Matter With Kansas?' lamenting the failure of Democrats there. Yet Governor Kelly is now in her second term. Michelle and I are going to talk about what lessons she offers for her party. Thanks for being here. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
15-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Are the Courts Checking Trump — or Enabling Him?
In this episode of 'The Opinions,' the editorial director David Leonhardt talks to a conservative former federal judge, Michael McConnell, about the role of the courts in President Trump's second term. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. David Leonhardt: I'm David Leonhardt, the director of the New York Times editorial board. Every week I'm having conversations to help shape the board's opinions. One thing that I find useful right now is talking with President Trump's conservative critics. They tend to be alarmed by the president's behavior, but they also tend to be more optimistic than many progressives about whether American democracy is surviving the Trump presidency. And that combination helps me and my colleagues think about where the biggest risks to our country really are. One area I've been wrestling with is the federal court system. I want to understand the extent to which the courts are acting as a check on President Trump as he tries to amass more power, or whether the courts are actually helping him amass that power. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Time Magazine
03-07-2025
- Business
- Time Magazine
The GOP Budget Takes From the Poor and Gives to the Rich
The GOP claims to be the party of the working class. Their budget, which House Republicans are rushing to vote on, says the opposite. There has been a lot of discussion recently about what New York Times writer David Leonhardt has called the 'class inversion of American politics—with most professionals supporting Democrats and more working-class people backing Republicans.' If this political 'class inversion' is real, it seems awfully hard to square with the signature policy of the second Trump Administration: the so-called 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' (OBBB). This bill will result in easily the largest one-time upward redistribution of income in U.S. history. Take one jarring symmetry: the spending cuts to health care and food assistance programs in the bill will average about $120 billion each year over the next decade while the new tax cuts for households already making over $500,000 each year will average just over $120 billion per year. The OBBB combines staggeringly large benefits to the richest households in the country with outright cuts to incomes of the bottom 40%. This combination of spending cuts for the vulnerable and tax cuts for the rich leads to the stunning result summarized in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office: the poorest 20% of U.S. households will see income losses of almost 4% under this bill while the richest 10% will see gains of over 2%. In dollar terms, the tax provisions of the OBBB are equivalent to writing annual checks of $296,000 to every single taxpayer with an annual income over $5 million, and checks of $55,300 to all taxpayers with annual incomes between $1 million and $5 million. The steep cuts to Medicaid and health insurance subsidies in the marketplace exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will lead to 17 million people losing health insurance coverage. These coverage losses won't just cause suffering for those newly uninsured now unable to access needed health care without financial catastrophe, they will ripple through the health system and the larger economy, causing damage everywhere. For example, rural hospitals have been huge beneficiaries of the ACA's Medicaid expansion. The rate of rural hospital closure in expansion states (that is, states that accepted the ACA money to expand Medicaid for their residents) is 62% lower than in states that refused the ACA expansions. Hospitals generally rely on Medicaid for 20% of their total revenue, and rural hospitals have razor-thin operating margins. The OBBB cuts to Medicaid are guaranteed to cause rural hospital closures. These closures will leave rural residents with fewer places to receive needed care and will starve weak rural economies of needed jobs. Counties that currently rely heavily on Medicaid to cover their potential workers (those between the ages of 19 and 64) also have higher-than-average unemployment rates. This means that the Medicaid cuts called for in the OBBB will especially impact counties that are already struggling economically. If we just look at the Medicaid cuts likely to fall on counties with an unemployment rate that is 0.5% above the national average (a decent marker for a fragile local economy), this would imply roughly 850,000 jobs (only about a quarter of them directly in health care) could be destroyed by the Medicaid cuts in those counties. Finally, it's worth noting that even with these highly destructive cuts, the Senate version adds nearly $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. This demonstrates again how staggeringly tilted to the top its tax cuts are. Take one example: if we took on $4 trillion in new debt and just distributed it on a lump-sum basis across the entire country, we could give $12,000 to every adult and child in the U.S. Instead, because the OBBB gives the very rich much more than this (more than 100 times more, in fact), other families (mostly poor) are forced to accept outright cuts to their incomes. The OBBB is stunning only in how brazenly it takes from the bottom to give to the top. It should be embarrassing for any party to champion such a reverse-Robin Hood bill. It should be really embarrassing for a party hoping to convince people that it has changed its spots and is now really a champion for the working class. Given that it has been rammed through on a party-line vote with near-unanimous support from the GOP, we all know the truth.
New York Times
01-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump May Get His ‘Big Beautiful Bill,' but the G.O.P. Will Pay a Price
There will be many short- and long-term consequences if Republicans succeed in passing President Trump's signature policy bill, as they aim to do before the July 4 holiday, David Leonhardt, the director of the Times editorial board, tells the national politics writer Michelle Cottle in this episode of 'The Opinions.' Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Michelle Cottle: I'm Michelle Cottle and I cover national politics for Times Opinion. So with the July 4 weekend looming, I thought we'd talk about a different kind of fireworks: that is, President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and as always, I hope the air quotes there are audible for everybody. But that bill looks like it is on track for passage. From Medicaid cuts to tax breaks for the rich, it is a lot. Thankfully with me to talk about this is David Leonhardt, the fearless director of the New York Times editorial board, who has some very pointed thoughts on the matter. So let's just get to it. David, welcome. David Leonhardt: Thank you, Michelle. It's great to be talking with you. Cottle: I'm so excited, but warning to all: We are recording on Monday midday and even as we speak, the Senate is brawling its way through to a final vote. So the situation is fluid and could change the details by the time you all hear this. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
