〈Josh Shapiro 知道民主黨人需要什麼〉的完整中文翻譯（作者：Binyamin Appelbaum，《紐約時報》意見專欄，2025年11月9日）：
Josh Shapiro 知道民主黨人需要什麼
文／Binyamin Appelbaum，《紐約時報》意見專欄作家
這篇文章是《紐約時報》「民主黨控制權之爭」系列的第四篇，探討那些思想家、新銳與意識形態派系之間的鬥爭。
本文是關於爭奪民主黨控制權的思想家、新貴和意識形態家的系列文章的第四篇。
為民主黨的未來而戰
一系列觀點文章，探討那些爭奪黨內控制權的思想家、新貴和意識形態家。
客座文章克里斯·海耶斯：民主黨的主要問題不在於他們的訊息。
除非民主黨人能夠讓人們專注於他們的國家願景，否則這些願景就毫無意義。
克里斯·海耶斯
2025年10月19日
米歇爾‧戈德堡他年輕有才華，公開信奉宗教。他會是民主黨人一直在等待的救世主嗎？
詹姆斯·塔拉里科認為我們社會的中心存在著精神空虛。
作者：米歇爾‧戈德堡
2025年10月1日
客座文章民主黨正處於危機之中。 「劫富濟貧」的民粹主義是唯一的出路。
對經濟精英的猛烈抨擊，在文化議題上採取溫和立場，並摒棄一切照舊的政治模式。這就是重塑民主黨的方式。
作者：蒂莫西·申克
在加州這樣的深藍州，即使是紙板做的民主黨候選人也能輕鬆勝選。民主黨真正需要回答的問題、關乎政黨未來乃至美國民主命運的問題是：什麼樣的民主黨人能贏得賓夕法尼亞州？
事實上，答案已經出現了——他的名字叫 喬許・夏皮羅（Josh Shapiro）。
自2016年以來的三次選舉中，這位現任賓州州長在全州得票數都超過任何其他候選人——包括總統與聯邦參議員。他在郊區與農村地區的表現尤其突出，正是民主黨當前最掙扎的地方。
目前幾位中間派民主黨州長都成功治理了川普在2024年仍拿下的州份，例如密西根的葛瑞琴・惠特默（Gretchen Whitmer），她以「修好那些該死的道路」為競選口號當選；以及肯塔基的安迪・貝希爾（Andy Beshear），他以跨黨合作的「肯塔基團隊」模式吸引企業投資。
政府可以運作——而且應該讓它運作
令我對夏皮羅著迷的原因在於：在這個充滿對政府不信任的時代，他卻以堅信政府能運作的信念，成為全美最關鍵搖擺州中最受歡迎的政治人物。
他擅長設計聰明的政治妥協，也善於讓「中間路線」聽起來緊迫而必要。他的政治形象充滿活力，始終強調「我能把事情辦成」。他最知名的政績之一是——僅用 12天 便重開一條倒塌的高速公路。
本週選舉結果再次點燃民主黨內部的爭論：復興之路應該向左走還是向中間走？
爭論之所以持續，不是因為答案不明，而是因為許多民主黨人不願接受那個明確答案。民主黨若想重返白宮或奪回國會，就必須學會擁抱像夏皮羅這樣的中間派。
左派不願承認的事實
紐約州進步派候選人 Zohran Mamdani 的勝選，並不能證明進步主義在大城市與海岸州之外也可行。民主黨也不能僅靠包裝舊理念換新紙。這個政黨早已自我邊緣化，即使川普的任期極不受歡迎，也沒讓民主黨更受青睞。民主黨若想實現其政策目標，首先得學會說服像賓夕法尼亞這樣的選民——以及那些更討厭民主黨的地區——相信他們值得再給一次機會。
夏皮羅的模式，是民主黨復興的可行藍圖。
民主黨自稱是「相信政府」的政黨，那他們就必須證明政府確實能運作，能兌現他們的承諾：教育、安全與機會。
愛國的中間派
身為2020年賓州檢察總長，夏皮羅多次抵抗川普試圖顛覆選舉結果的訴訟——這是許多民主黨人渴望的對抗場面。但他明白，打敗川普的真正方法，是提出比川普更好的替代方案。
在夏皮羅眼中，民主黨的版本比共和黨更愛國、也在某種意義上更保守。
這個政黨主張改進公共機構，而非摧毀它們，並繼承美國實驗的核心精神：自由民主、多元社會，以及為公共利益而規範的自由市場。
歷史教訓顯示，人們會為了安全與穩定而犧牲民主。夏皮羅深知必須說服人民：民主仍是更好的選擇。
犯罪與經濟——他主動迎戰共和黨強項
美國政治長期存在一種模式：選民更信任共和黨處理犯罪與經濟。這就是為什麼最近某個星期五，夏皮羅特地到匹茲堡談「治安與經濟」。
他站在阿勒格尼河上的高地，背後是風景如畫的市中心天際線，向媒體介紹城市再開發投資方案的進展。
那天天氣異常炎熱，現場許多人退到棚下乘涼。助理分發瓶裝水給陪同的市政員工。夏皮羅則衣著筆挺、頭髮梳得光亮，露出柴郡貓般的微笑——完全不顧炎熱，顯然很享受。
「這些計畫正在快速推進，」他對鏡頭說，「我們一刻都不浪費。」
「是的，而且……」的政治
匹茲堡方案規模不大，但正好體現他的政治哲學。他的手法類似即興喜劇的「Yes, and...」原則——接受前提，再往上構建。他主張同時增加警察與公設辯護人經費，提升公校預算並發放教育券給家長；他為企業減稅（特別是降低州公司稅），同時堅決支持提高最低工資、阻止「禁止工會」法案，因此仍受勞工支持。
這套城市發展與公共安全方案，融合了典型的民主黨色彩：
補貼重建辦公樓與無家者住房、增加警力、與社會服務機構合作。
「要做，就快做、說出來」
夏皮羅的第二個原則是：不斷向人民說明他在做什麼、如何幫助他們、而且要盡快完成。
2023年6月，費城一輛油罐車在95號州際公路下方爆炸，導致高架道路坍塌。原預估需封路數月，但夏皮羅宣布緊急狀態，批准填補工程、搭建臨時橋面，並對鏡頭承諾：「兩週內重開。」結果12天就完成。
他證明：政府是可以辦事的。
在他看來，左派太迷信程序、右派則反對成果。兩邊都阻礙了進步。
夏皮羅拒絕左派的程序主義，也拒絕右派的虛無主義。他說自己「相信政府能成為人民生活中的善良力量」。
他也坦承多數選民已不再信任政府，但他同樣厭倦官僚無能——「我們的機構很重要，但必須改革。我們的首要責任，是展示成果、交出成績。」
（他笑說，他平常說的是「另一個詞」取代 stuff，只是這次受訪對象是《紐時》，所以自我審查。）
「反菁英」的改革象徵
2023年1月就任州長首日，他簽署行政命令——取消大多數州公職的學歷要求。
這是為了幫助低收入者，也是一種糾正：「民主黨這十幾年來一直在告訴人們，沒上大學就不算成功，」他說，「那很冒犯。」
從少年落選到全州最受歡迎政治人物
夏皮羅上次輸選舉，還是在1990年——他是費城郊區一名高二生，參選學生會主席落得第三名。
從喬治城大學法律系畢業、在國會工作後，他回到家鄉賓州，2004年當選州議員，2012年進入蒙哥馬利郡委員會，2016年出任州檢察總長。
他在2020年選舉中對抗川普的訴訟，是他政治生涯的代表章。
2022年民主黨一致推他選州長，結果以壓倒性勝利當選。
如今他正準備2026年連任，但似乎毫無懸念。根據昆尼皮亞克大學上月民調，他的滿意度高達 60％，僅 28％ 不滿。
會不會問鼎全國？
當我問他是否有意將這種政治風格帶上全國舞台時，他以老練政治家的方式婉轉回應：「能讓你認為我們在賓州的治理模式值得他人借鏡，我感到謙卑與榮幸。」
但他若要爭取全國選民，也面臨一些現實問題——他是職業政治人物，在厭政情緒高漲的國家不受歡迎；他信仰更好的政府，而非反政府；他是虔誠的猶太教徒，而美國仍偏好至少名義上的新教徒總統。
他支持教育券與以色列（儘管批評以色列現政府），也讓部分民主黨人不滿。賓州雖與其他搖擺州相似，但西語裔比例較低，種族結構不如全美多元。
「進步派不想要中間派」
他面對的最大挑戰或許是——許多進步派根本不想要一個中間派。
他們認為黨的靈魂在於改革，而非妥協。正如泰德・甘迺迪1980年在讓出提名給吉米・卡特時說：「進步是我們的傳統。對的事，也是勝利之道。」對他們而言，民主黨永遠停在1980年那場抉擇：理想還是溫吞的中間路線？
但健康的政黨不能只屬於進步派或保守派，它必須兼具兩者——同時思考「該保存什麼、該改變什麼」。
民主黨常自稱「環境保育者」或「文化保存者」，但那其實都是保守的任務——保護現有價值。富蘭克林・羅斯福設立社會安全制度已近百年，如今維護它早已不是進步，而是保守。
伯克會認同他
現代保守主義之父、英裔愛爾蘭政治家艾德蒙・伯克（Edmund Burke），若活在今日，會將川普主義視為他最憎惡的那種政治：失去道德羅盤、以權力為目的的激進破壞。
他也可能會在夏皮羅身上看到一點知音——主張改良現有制度，而非摧毀重建。
夏皮羅雖不願自稱「保守」，但他說：「我確實相信制度，但它們必須改革，才能為人民服務。」
「讓美國再次偉大」的另一種詮釋
夏皮羅的挑戰，是說服選民：解決問題的最好方式——讓美國再度偉大的真正路徑——是重振那些曾讓我們成功的事物。
我們曾是全世界教育最好的國家——我們需要再次投資教育。
我們的基礎建設曾是世界羨慕的對象——我們需要再次投資基建。
我們曾確保繁榮能被廣泛分享——我們需要再做到一次。
火焰中的省思
2025年4月逾越節首夜，一名男子翻越賓州州長官邸圍欄，投擲汽油彈並縱火。當時夏皮羅與家人都在屋內，幸運逃過一劫。
數月後在「根除仇恨全球高峰會」上，他談到這起事件。他說，許多年輕人之所以轉向暴力，是因為他們從政府那裡得不到任何幫助。
他舉例說，自己政府正在簡化執照申請流程，「我知道，一張執照不能終結暴力，但或許能讓人多一分信心——相信這個體系真的能為他服務。」
他說：「想想看，如果有那麼一次，人們向政府求助——而真的得到了幫助。」
這句話展現出一種謙遜，也提醒我們：還有許多事要去完成。
☝☝☝☝
埃德蒙·伯克（英語：Edmund Burke，1729年1月12日—1797年7月9日[1]），愛爾蘭裔的英國的政治家、作家、演說家、政治理論家和哲學家，他曾在英國下議院擔任了數年輝格黨的議員。他最為後人所知的事蹟包括了他反對英王喬治三世和英國政府、支持美國殖民地以及後來的美國革命的立場，以及他後來對於法國大革命的批判。對法國大革命的反思使他成為輝格黨裡的保守主義主要人物（他還以「老輝格」自稱），反制黨內提倡革命的「新輝格」。伯克也出版了許多與美學有關的著作，並且創立了一份名為Annual Register的政治期刊。他經常被視為是英美保守主義的奠基者[2]。
伯克（/ bɜːrk /；1729年1月12日[ NS ] —1797年7月9日）是一位英裔愛爾蘭政治家和哲學家，被認為是保守主義文化和政治哲學的創始人。[ 3 ]他被譽為18世紀最具影響力的保守主義思想家和政治作家之一。[ 4 ]伯克的大部分職業生涯都在英國度過，並於1766年至1794年代表輝格黨當選為英國下議院議員。他的著作在1789年法國大革命後對英國和法國的公眾觀點和輿論產生了至關重要的影響。[ 5 ]時至今日，他仍是現代保守主義政治圈的重要人物。
伯克主張在社會中以禮儀來支撐美德，並強調宗教機構對國家道德穩定和福祉的重要性。[ 6 ]這些觀點體現在他的諷刺作品《為自然社會辯護》（1756）。他也批評了英國政府對待美洲殖民地的種種行徑，包括其稅收政策。伯克支持殖民地居民反抗宗主國權威的權利，但他反對殖民地爭取獨立的嘗試。此外，他還因長期支持天主教解放運動、彈劾東印度公司總裁沃倫·黑斯廷斯以及反對法國大革命而為人銘記。 1774年，伯克當選為布里斯托選區的國會議員。
在《法國革命反思錄》（1790）中，伯克斷言，法國大革命正在摧毀良好社會的結構以及國家和社會的傳統制度，並譴責由此導致的對天主教會的迫害。這使他成為輝格黨保守派中頗受歡迎的領導人物，他稱該派為“老輝格黨”，以對抗由查爾斯·詹姆斯·福克斯領導的親法國大革命的“新輝格黨” 。[ 7 ]伯克與當時的一些公共知識分子關係密切，包括塞繆爾·約翰遜、大衛·加里克、奧利弗·戈德史密斯和約書亞·雷諾茲。在辯論中，他經常反對不受限制的統治權力，並強調政黨必須具備維持原則性反對派的能力，以防止權力濫用。
19世紀，伯克受到保守派和自由派的共同讚揚。[ 8 ]隨後，在20世紀，他與極端保皇派和極端教 權主義者約瑟夫·德·邁斯特一起，被廣泛認為是保守主義的哲學奠基人，尤其是在美國和英國。[ 3 ] [ 9 ]他的著作和文學作品對英國保守主義思想產生了深遠的影響，並為現代保守主義和自由民主奠定了早期基礎。[ 12 ]
☝☝☝☝
Opinion
Binyamin Appelbaum
Josh Shapiro Knows What the Democrats Need
Nov. 9, 2025
A headshot of Josh Shapiro.
Credit...Illustration by The New York Times
Listen to this article · 14:40 min Learn more
Share full article
reporter headshot701
Binyamin Appelbaum
By Binyamin Appelbaum
Opinion writer
This essay is the fourth installment in a series on the thinkers, upstarts and ideologues battling for control of the Democratic Party.
A cardboard cutout of a presidential candidate could win California on the Democratic line and another 15 deep blue states. The question Democrats need to answer, the question that matters for the future of the Democratic Party and quite possibly for the future of democracy in America, is what kind of Democrat can win Pennsylvania.
As it happens, we already know the answer. His name is Josh Shapiro.
In his last three elections, beginning in 2016, Pennsylvania’s governor has drawn more votes than anyone else running in the state — presidential candidates, Senate candidates, other candidates for statewide office — and outperformed other Democrats in the exurban and rural areas where the party is struggling.
Centrist Democrats govern several of the states that President Trump won in 2024, including Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, who won office on a promise to “fix the damn roads,” and Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, who has championed a bipartisan “Team Kentucky” approach to attracting corporate investment to the state.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Shapiro intrigues me because, in an era of widespread distrust in government, he has become the most popular politician in the nation’s most important battleground state by insisting that government can work.
He has a record of delivering clever political compromises, and he’s good at making centrism sound urgent. His political persona is a constant performance of vigor. As he reminds Pennsylvanians at every opportunity, he gets stuff done. His most celebrated achievement is reopening a collapsed highway in just 12 days.
Tuesday’s election results have supercharged the debate among Democrats about whether the road to political recovery runs toward the middle or the left. The reason the argument persists is not because the answer is unclear but because, for many Democrats, the clear answer is unpalatable. The party will not return to the White House, nor reclaim Congress, until it learns to embrace centrist politicians like Mr. Shapiro.
Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York does not demonstrate the viability of progressive candidates outside of a few big cities and coastal states. Nor can Democrats solve their problems by wrapping the same ideas in better paper. The party has marginalized itself so thoroughly that even Mr. Trump’s unpopular presidency isn’t doing much to make Democrats more popular. Everything Democrats want to accomplish is downstream from figuring out how to persuade voters in places like Pennsylvania — and in a bunch of places where the Democratic brand is held in even lower regard — that the party deserves another chance.
Mr. Shapiro’s recipe is a plausible basis for the party’s renewal. Democrats are the party that believes in government; they have to show that government can work. They have to deliver the stuff they’ve already promised: education, security, opportunity.
Editors’ Picks
On ‘S.N.L.,’ Trump Sidesteps Calamities and Unconscious Visitor
22 Thanksgiving Main Dishes That Are Better Than Turkey
Stinking, Spongy, Dark, Huge: A Spider Web Unlike Any Seen Before
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
As Pennsylvania’s attorney general in 2020, Mr. Shapiro repeatedly battled Mr. Trump’s legal assaults on the integrity of the state’s election results, delivering the kind of confrontations that many Democrats crave. But the way to beat Mr. Trump is to show Americans that you have a better alternative.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Mr. Shapiro’s version of the Democratic Party is more patriotic than the G.O.P. and, in some sense, more conservative. It is a party that wants to improve public institutions rather than blowing them to smithereens, and to carry forward the basic elements of the American experiment: liberal democracy, a pluralistic society, free markets regulated in the public interest.
History teaches that people will readily sacrifice democracy to regain a sense of safety and stability. Mr. Shapiro recognizes the urgency of convincing people that democracy is still the better bet.
One of the most durable patterns in American politics is that voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to fight crime and deliver economic growth. It’s no coincidence that on a recent Friday, Mr. Shapiro was in Pittsburgh to talk about crime and economic growth.
Standing on a bluff above the Allegheny River, he delivered a progress report on a package of investments in downtown Pittsburgh, which loomed photogenically behind him.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
It was a surprisingly hot day, and much of the crowd had retreated under a canopy. Aides handed out water bottles to the municipal workers who had been rounded up to stand with Mr. Shapiro. The governor, dapper and trim, hair slicked back, grin like a Cheshire cat, didn’t seem to notice the heat. He looked as if he was having fun.
“These projects are moving fast,” Mr. Shapiro told the cameras. “We are not wasting any time.”
The Pittsburgh plan is a relatively modest intervention into the city’s fortunes, but it’s a good illustration of Mr. Shapiro’s political formula. The first rule of improvisational comedy is “yes, and ….” You accept what the last person said, and then you build on top of it. Mr. Shapiro takes a similar approach to forging political compromises. He’s in favor of more money for the police and for public defenders. He has pushed to increase funding for public schools and to provide school vouchers to parents. He has delivered some high-profile wins for businesses, notably a cut in the state’s corporate tax rate. He also has retained strong support from unions by backing a higher minimum wage and vowing to block any right-to-work legislation.
His Pittsburgh plan is a standard set of economic development and public safety proposals, with some distinctly Democratic touches: subsidies for the redevelopment of office buildings and housing for the homeless; more police officers working downtown and increased collaboration with social services agencies.
A second tenet of Mr. Shapiro’s approach is telling people, repeatedly, what he is doing to help them, and that he is doing it as fast as possible. In June 2023, a tanker truck caught fire underneath an elevated section of Interstate 95 in northeast Philadelphia, causing a portion of the highway to collapse. The road was expected to be closed for months, but Mr. Shapiro declared a state of emergency and approved a plan to fill the area underneath I-95, allowing rapid construction of a temporary replacement on top. He went before the cameras and promised to reopen the highway in two weeks. It reopened in 12 days.
Government often doesn’t work because the left cares more about procedures than outcomes, and the right opposes the outcomes. One side wants to start building a modern railroad between Los Angeles and San Francisco just as soon as all the paperwork is done; the other side wants to kill the project. Neither approach helps to move people between the cities.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Shapiro rejects both the proceduralism of the left and the nihilism of the right. In a recent conversation, he told me that he was “someone who believes the government can be a force for good in people’s lives.” A substantial majority of voters no longer trust government to pursue big projects, and Mr. Shapiro was quick to add that he understands and shares the frustration with government in its present shambolic condition. “Our institutions are important, but need to be reformed,” he said. “Our fundamental responsibility is to show our work and deliver for our people — to get stuff done.”
(Mr. Shapiro often uses a different word in place of “stuff.” He told me that he was censoring himself because he was talking to The Times.)
On his first day as governor in January 2023, Mr. Shapiro signed an executive order eliminating college degree requirements for most state jobs. It was an effort to help lower-income Pennsylvanians — and a corrective, he said, for his party’s elitist tendencies. “For the last more than a decade, the Democratic Party has been saying to people that you’re not really successful unless you go to college,” he said. “I think that’s offensive.”
The best case for Mr. Shapiro’s brand of politics is that it works. The last time he lost an election was in 1990, when he was an 11th grader at a high school outside Philadelphia and he finished third in the race for student body president.
After graduating from Georgetown Law and working on Capitol Hill, Mr. Shapiro returned to Pennsylvania in 2004 and won a seat in the state House. In 2012 he traded that job for a seat on the board of commissioners in Montgomery County, a Philadelphia suburb, and in 2016 he became the state’s attorney general. His defining chapter in that job was his defense of the integrity of the 2020 election. He repeatedly beat back the attempts by Mr. Trump’s campaign to make voting more difficult, and then to prevent the counting of votes that already had been cast. In 2022 Democrats regarded him as the obvious choice to run for Pennsylvania governor, and he won in a landslide.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Shapiro’s most immediate political challenge is running for re-election next year, but it may not be much of a challenge. Polls shows that he’s more popular today than when he was elected. His approval rating stood at 60 percent in a poll published last month by Quinnipiac University, with 28 percent disapproving.
When I asked Mr. Shapiro if he is interested in taking his brand of politics national, he demurred in the way that a practiced politician does when he is keeping his options open. “I’m humbled and flattered that you view the way in which we govern in Pennsylvania as a model for others,” he said.
There are some obvious reasons to worry about his national appeal. He is a career politician in a country that disdains the profession, a proponent of better government in an era defined by bipartisan suspicion of the state, and a practicing Jew in a nation that prefers presidents who are at least nominally Protestant. Mr. Shapiro has angered some Democrats by backing school vouchers and defending Israel, although he has criticized its current government. And Pennsylvania — while similar demographically to swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin — is less racially diverse than the United States as a whole, and in particular has a relatively small share of Latinos.
Perhaps his biggest challenge, certainly in pursuing the Democratic nomination, is simply that a lot of progressives don’t want a centrist. They see the party as defined and held together by its commitments to change; they believe it is those commitments that motivate people to vote for Democratic candidates. “Progress is our heritage,” Ted Kennedy declared in his 1980 speech conceding the party’s nomination to the centrist candidate, President Jimmy Carter. “What is right for us as Democrats is also the right way for Democrats to win.” For progressives, it is always 1980, always on the cusp of that fateful choice between integrity and tepid centrism.
Healthy political parties, however, cannot be solely progressive or conservative. They must be both. They necessarily embody a set of judgments about what to preserve and what to change. Democrats may prefer to describe themselves as “conservationists” committed to protecting the natural environment or “preservationists” opposed to development that disrupts established communities. But those are fundamentally conservative projects, devoted to protecting what already exists. Almost a century after Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, it is no longer progressive to defend the program. It will soon be older than all of its beneficiaries.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The first great exponent of modern conservatism, the Anglo-Irish politician Edmund Burke, would have had no trouble recognizing Mr. Trump’s Republican Party as embodying the political tendencies he regarded as most dangerous. Burke, writing during the French Revolution, saw conservatism as a bulwark against radicalism, a defense of society against the ravages of men who had lost their moral compasses and were wielding power almost as an end in itself. He would have loathed Mr. Trump.
I think Burke also would have recognized Mr. Shapiro as something of a kindred spirit. Burke understood that change was necessary. States that lacked the capacity to change, he wrote, also lacked the capacity to survive. What he argued, however, was that societies should address problems by improving existing institutions rather than knocking them down.
When I put this to Mr. Shapiro, he was understandably reluctant to embrace “conservative” as a description of any part of his politics. “I do believe in the institutions,” he told me, “but they’ve got to be reformed so they can work for the people.”
Call it what you will: Mr. Shapiro’s challenge will be to persuade people that the best way to address our problems — the best way to make America great again — is to double down on the things that got us here in the first place. Not incidentally, these are also the things that voters routinely say they care about most.
We were the best educated nation in the world. We need to invest in education.
Our infrastructure was the envy of the world. We need to invest in infrastructure.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
We ensured that prosperity was broadly distributed. We need to do that again.
In April, on the first night of Passover, a man named Cody Allen Balmer scaled the fence around the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion. He smashed windows and threw Molotov cocktails into the building, setting it ablaze. Mr. Shapiro, his family and some guests were home at the time but escaped without injuries.
Mr. Shapiro talked about the attack in a speech he gave a few months later, at the Eradicate Hate Global Summit. He said a lot of familiar things, but also something that was less familiar. He said that people, especially younger Americans, are not getting what they need from the government, and that is part of the reason some of them conclude that violence is the only path forward. Referring to his administration’s work to streamline the process of applying for permits, he said, “I realize a permit won’t end violence, but maybe it causes someone to have a bit more faith that the system can work for them.”
“Think of it,” he said, “the one time someone turns to government for help — and gets it.”
There’s a becoming modesty in that thought. And a lot of stuff to get done.
More from Opinion’s series on the future of the Democrats
Opinion | Chris Hayes
Chris Hayes: The Democrats’ Main Problem Isn’t Their Message
Oct. 19, 2025
Opinion | Michelle Goldberg
He’s Young, Talented and Openly Religious. Is He the Savior Democrats Have Been Waiting For?
Oct. 1, 2025
Opinion | Timothy Shenk
Democrats Are in Crisis. Eat-the-Rich Populism Is the Only Answer.
Sept. 29, 2025
Source photograph by Sarah Yenesel/EPA, via Shutterstock
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
Binyamin Appelbaum is the lead writer on economics and business for The Times editorial board. He is based in Washington. @BCAppelbaum • Facebook
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。