-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Elise Stefanik's defense1 of Trump2 around Jan. 6 clouds her pro-democracy work abroad
In October 2021, New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik stepped onstage at an event in Washington, D.C. – a celebration of human rights activists4 from Central America.
"I am honored to present you with the 2021 Democracy Award," Stefanik said, as the room applauded a group called Nicaragua Nunca Más.
The event was organized by the National Endowment for Democracy, a congressionally funded pro-democracy group where Stefanik serves on the board of directors.
In her speech, Stefanik talked about Nicaragua's "consolidation5 into dictatorship" and the importance of "promoting and strengthening democracy around the world."
But when it comes to domestic politics, the No. 3 House Republican strikes a different tone.
She voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. In the weeks before the Endowment's award ceremony, her campaign published a controversial Facebook ad making an unfounded accusation6: that "Radical7 Democrats8" are colluding with immigrants to stage "a PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION."
This month, she's been one of Donald Trump's most vocal9 defenders10 – and one of the House Jan. 6 committee's biggest critics. "We want to make sure that every American knows that this is not a serious investigation11. This is a partisan12 political witch hunt," Stefanik said in an interview with the conservative outlet13 Newsmax.
In her defense of Trump, Stefanik regularly spreads election conspiracy14 theories – some of the same ideas that motivated a violent mob to storm the U.S. Capitol. Her statements and actions have prompted some of the Endowment's staff to demand her removal from her leadership role. But when her position on the board expired in 2022, she was renewed for another term.
Years of pro-democracy work preceded a dramatic political pivot15
When she won her first term, at age 30, Stefanik was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. She was known as a principled hard worker – and somebody who worked with Democrats on all kinds of issues. By one index, she was ranked the 13th most bipartisan member of Congress.
Stefanik also spent much of her career working with organizations that defend democratic and civic16 institutions, including the Foreign Policy Initiative and Harvard's Institute of Politics.
The National Endowment for Democracy embodies17 all the values the United States traditionally stands for. Congress appropriates the money, and the Endowment writes grants to help activists and civil society groups in countries with autocratic leaders.
But after Stefanik was chosen for the board in early 2019, her politics changed. Now, some people who work at the Endowment say that she is undermining their mission and harming their work from the inside.
Stefanik has never said explicitly18 that the election was stolen or rigged – her rhetoric19 is more polished than Trump's – but she amplifies20 much of the same mis- and disinformation as the former president.
"Tens of millions of Americans are rightly concerned that the 2020 election featured unprecedented21 voting irregularities, unconstitutional overreach by unelected state officials and judges ignoring state election laws, and a fundamental lack of ballot22 integrity and ballot security," Stefanik said on Jan. 4, 2021.
Election experts say 2020 was the most carefully watched election in American history. Both Republican and Democratic officials across the country oversaw23 it and never found any evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities.
Stefanik condemned24 the violence on Jan. 6. But after police had cleared the rioters from the Capitol grounds, she voted against certifying25 President Biden's win in Pennsylvania.
Staff were angry about Stefanik's actions around Jan. 6
At the National Endowment for Democracy, a lot of people on staff were livid about Stefanik's Jan. 6 vote. One former staffer told NPR that the Endowment's values were "totally undermined and mocked" by its own board member.
More than 60 people signed an internal letter describing Stefanik's actions as "upsetting in the extreme."
"Nothing could be more incompatible26 with the democratic values which are enshrined in the Endowment and its sacred mission," the letter read. "It is our desire to know how it could be possible that Representative Stefanik will remain part of the NED board of directors following her abuse of office in ways that contradict NED's core values in the starkest27 terms, and what steps will be taken to resolve this contradiction."
The leadership has kept Stefanik on their board
The letter was the focus of some heated staff meetings.
The organization put out a statement about Jan. 6, saying that the Endowment is "appalled28 by the violent and seditious assault" on the Capitol. But they decided29 not to remove Stefanik.
The Endowment declined to do an interview for this story. But NPR spoke30 with people who were part of the staff discussions at the Endowment after Jan. 6. They didn't want to give their names because they weren't authorized31 to speak to the media and feared they could lose their jobs or face career backlash for doing so.
The staff was told that the Endowment is bipartisan and that it cannot get dragged into domestic politics, the sources said. The organization's funding has come under threat in the past – most recently during the Trump administration – but it's had consistent backing from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and the leadership wants to keep it that way.
The leadership also argued that Stefanik is supportive of the Endowment's work abroad and is a critical ally in Congress, staffers said.
Then conversations about Stefanik died down. Her role on the board of directors did not change.
Some staffers told NPR they hoped the Endowment would quietly let Stefanik go, or put some distance between the organization and the congresswoman. Instead, Stefanik spoke at the 2021 award ceremony. And when her position on the board expired in January of this year, she was renewed for another term.
Meanwhile, Harvard's Institute of Politics did remove Stefanik from an advisory32 role after Jan. 6. Stefanik accused the university of "bowing to the woke, far-left mob."
NPR reached out to Stefanik for this story, but her office did not respond to our request.
However, a spokesperson did comment on a related story in Politico, which first reported on the internal turmoil33 at the Endowment over Stefanik's role last year.
The spokesperson told Politico that Stefanik was "proud to have one of the strongest records in the House supporting and leading bipartisan efforts to fund the National Endowment of Democracy and the mission of supporting and strengthening democratic institutions around the world."
The current and former staffers interviewed for this story argued that the Endowment's decision not to remove Stefanik was hypocritical. "She participated in an attempt to overturn an election. It's hard to think of anything more fundamental to the issues we care about," one person said.
Another source said it's "embarrassing" that Stefanik is on the board because the Endowment "is supposed to be a leader in this fight for democracy."
"This was something that transcended34 partisanship," a third person said.
A lot of the staffers were sympathetic to the leadership's point that the Endowment's funding has been at risk in the past and could easily be jeopardized35 again if the organization is perceived as choosing sides in political battles.
"We have seen a vindictiveness36 in some quarters of the Republican Party aimed at efforts to hold them accountable for what one might call counter-democratic actions," the third source said. "It's not something to be dismissed out of hand."
But they wanted more transparency on the decision to embrace Stefanik, they said, and wanted to know how the Endowment would react to attacks on American democracy in the future.
What best serves democracy?
For years, Larry Diamond was co-editor of the Endowment's Journal of Democracy. In a farewell piece earlier this year, Diamond wrote about the "deterioration37 of democratic norms and institutions in the United States" and around the world. "This is the darkest moment for freedom in half a century," he wrote.
Still, he suggested that firing Stefanik would have been a careless move for the organization. "How does that serve democracy or the great work we're doing around the world to help democrats in desperate need, who need funding for their civil society organizations, funding for independent media, funding and training to resist authoritarian38 rule?" Diamond told NPR.
He added that in this moment of intense polarization, it's crucial to have "protected spaces where partisan politics is not going to intrude39. And I think it's important that the National Endowment for Democracy be one of those institutions."
But as Republican Party leaders embrace increasingly extreme views – like the false notion that the 2020 election was stolen – it may become more difficult for traditionally bipartisan groups to stay out of the fray40.
"These are tough issues and I think we're all trying to figure out, is bipartisanship possible these days?" said Charles Stewart III, a professor of political science at MIT.
"We could be longing41 for the day when the biggest worry we would have was with a Stefanik on the National Endowment of Democracy board," Stewart said.
Stefanik is one of 30 board members, and it appears the Endowment believes bipartisanship is still possible. They've indicated that they want to include politicians of all stripes as they make decisions and write grants – even someone who votes to overturn an election.
1 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 activists | |
n.(政治活动的)积极分子,活动家( activist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 consolidation | |
n.合并,巩固 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 accusation | |
n.控告,指责,谴责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 radical | |
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 vocal | |
adj.直言不讳的;嗓音的;n.[pl.]声乐节目 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 defenders | |
n.防御者( defender的名词复数 );守卫者;保护者;辩护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 partisan | |
adj.党派性的;游击队的;n.游击队员;党徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 outlet | |
n.出口/路;销路;批发商店;通风口;发泄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 conspiracy | |
n.阴谋,密谋,共谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 pivot | |
v.在枢轴上转动;装枢轴,枢轴;adj.枢轴的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 civic | |
adj.城市的,都市的,市民的,公民的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 embodies | |
v.表现( embody的第三人称单数 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 explicitly | |
ad.明确地,显然地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 rhetoric | |
n.修辞学,浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 amplifies | |
放大,扩大( amplify的第三人称单数 ); 增强; 详述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 unprecedented | |
adj.无前例的,新奇的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 ballot | |
n.(不记名)投票,投票总数,投票权;vi.投票 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 oversaw | |
v.监督,监视( oversee的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 certifying | |
(尤指书面)证明( certify的现在分词 ); 发证书给…; 证明(某人)患有精神病; 颁发(或授予)专业合格证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 incompatible | |
adj.不相容的,不协调的,不相配的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 starkest | |
(指区别)明显的( stark的最高级 ); 完全的; 了无修饰的; 僵硬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 appalled | |
v.使惊骇,使充满恐惧( appall的过去式和过去分词)adj.惊骇的;丧胆的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 authorized | |
a.委任的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 advisory | |
adj.劝告的,忠告的,顾问的,提供咨询 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 turmoil | |
n.骚乱,混乱,动乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 transcended | |
超出或超越(经验、信念、描写能力等)的范围( transcend的过去式和过去分词 ); 优于或胜过… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 jeopardized | |
危及,损害( jeopardize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 vindictiveness | |
恶毒;怀恨在心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 deterioration | |
n.退化;恶化;变坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 authoritarian | |
n./adj.专制(的),专制主义者,独裁主义者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 intrude | |
vi.闯入;侵入;打扰,侵扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 fray | |
v.争吵;打斗;磨损,磨破;n.吵架;打斗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 longing | |
n.(for)渴望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|