Saturday, July 24, 2021

In Her Words: ‘I defied gravity’

Running for political office against all odds
Amber Adler, the first Orthodox Jewish woman to run for City Council in her district in Brooklyn.Yana Paskova for The New York Times

"What was eye-opening to me was how abusive people can be to someone who's out to make a positive change."

— Amber Adler, who ran for City Council in Brooklyn's 48th district

ADVERTISEMENT

In Amber Adler's Orthodox Jewish community, deep in South Brooklyn, women generally don't do much public speaking. Or pose for newspaper photos. Or make major community decisions. But when Ms. Adler, 37, decided to run for City Council in Brooklyn's District 48, those activities became somewhat unavoidable.

She didn't anticipate just how caustic the response within her Orthodox community would be. "What was eye-opening to me was how abusive people can be to someone who's out to make a positive change," she said.

Almost immediately after she announced her campaign in June 2020, her inbox and social media accounts were flooded with messages, many of them from Orthodox Jewish men, trying to discredit her campaign. Some said that they didn't want their district to be represented by a woman; others criticized her as not religious enough or a neglectful mother.

The threats escalated in April, two months before the primary, when a group of six men in the community staged a protest outside Ms. Adler's home. Hoping to protect her two sons from the vitriol, Ms. Adler planned an excursion. (They were supposed to go to Coney Island, but ended up shopping at a local mall because it was raining.)

ADVERTISEMENT

"When we came back I had to explain to them, 'We're going home, but there might be someone not so nice waiting for us,'" she said.

Of course, running a political campaign is never an easy endeavor. Running as a woman can make it worse. Research shows that women face greater levels of online abuse than men do, and that it tends to focus more on their personal lives and sexuality instead of on their politics. But that dynamic is heightened for someone running in an Orthodox Jewish community — especially a divorced woman like Ms. Adler — where women are often expected to focus on raising their children, not leading public lives.

Ms. Adler's two sons helped her out on the campaign trail.Yana Paskova for The New York Times

Some of the hurdles Ms. Adler faced in her campaign were logistical. She couldn't campaign in the men's-only section of her synagogue, so she introduced herself to voters in the park where her kids played, instead.

Local Jewish newspapers refused to publish photos of her, citing Jewish custom that expects men to "guard" their eyes against potentially immodest images. So Ms. Adler found a workaround: She had a 20-foot billboard made, plastered with an image of herself and her sons, and hired someone to drive it around surrounding neighborhoods, including Flatbush and Midwood, while playing an ice cream truck-like campaign jingle — Amber Adler, here for us! Affordable child care, housing too! She chuckled when friends flooded her WhatsApp messages with photos of the billboard parked in various locations around the area.

That enthusiasm, though, was the exception. Many of the comments Ms. Adler received were sharp and personal, focused less on her politics and more on her family situation.

In 2016, after struggling for years in a relationship she said was abusive, Ms. Adler requested a religious divorce, called a "get," from her husband. In Orthodox Judaism, only the man can grant permission for a religious separation. Two years later, her husband agreed to grant her the "get," and it took two more years of arbitration before Ms. Adler was granted full legal custody of her sons, now 9 and 7.

On the heels of her experience, Ms. Adler went on to become an advocate for the hundreds of Orthodox women whose husbands refuse to grant them divorces in the religious system; they are known as "agunot," which means chained. Ms. Adler started a petition urging the New York State legislature to make coercive control a Class E felony, which now awaits a vote in the State Assembly.

To some men in the community, this work was all the more reason to brand Ms. Adler a rabble rouser. "The movement ruffled the feathers of people who had been exploiting their ability to grasp control over their ex," she said, adding that many men in the community had grown accustomed to using their power in divorce proceedings as a kind of bargaining chip to get what they wanted from their exes, whether financially or in terms of child custody.

But Ms. Adler's advocacy also stirred emotional responses. On Election Day, Ms. Adler was standing outside a polling site near an affordable housing complex when an older Orthodox woman — modestly dressed, with a wig and hat covering her hair — stopped to thank her.

A campaign ad featured Ms. Adler's children holding up a sign saying, "Vote 4 Mommy."Yana Paskova for The New York Times

"We need you to keep fighting," the woman said, according to Ms. Adler. "So that everyone knows we have a way out of a marriage."

When Ms. Adler first announced her candidacy, some members of the community questioned how she would balance campaigning with her responsibilities as a single mother: "What are you going to do with your kids?" they wanted to know.

They had a point: Summer camps were closed because of Covid, which meant her sons were with her all day. And the friends Ms. Adler usually relied on to babysit in a pinch were high-risk and couldn't help out because of health concerns.

"I defied gravity on so many levels," she said. "I kept saying, 'How much sleep can I go without tonight?' I tried to do everything, but there were not enough hours in the day."

But Ms. Adler also saw the campaign as an educational opportunity for her sons, and enlisted them to help distribute masks to seniors on the sidewalk while she spoke to voters.

In one of her ads, her sons proudly held up a sign that read "Vote 4 Mommy," alongside some of her campaign promises which focused on increasing affordable housing in the district and expanding preschool spots. Other ideas she frequently touted included fighting anti-Semitism and protecting elders from financial abuse.

Gradually, as the months of the campaign wore on, she began to hear a different message undercutting the abuse: gratitude. Dozens of women in her district, some Orthodox and others not, told her they had never thought they might be able to vote for political representation from a working Orthodox Jewish mom.

"I defied gravity on so many levels," said Ms. Adler, who found herself balancing the campaign trail with her boys' remote learning.Yana Paskova for The New York Times

In the primary last month, Ms. Adler won 17 percent of the first round vote and placed third in the fifth round of ranked choice voting. It was painful explaining to her sons that after all their family had sacrificed, including at times their sense of safety, she hadn't won.

Her older son just smiled: "That's OK," he told her. "You can always do it again."

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

What else is happening

Here are three articles from The Times you may have missed.

Oksana Lyniv makes her debut at the Bayreuth Festival on Sunday.Roderick Aichinger for The New York Times
  • "The most important thing for me is inspiration." After 145 years, the Bayreuth Festival in Germany has its first female conductor. [Read the story]
  • "Celebrity and fame does not absolve someone from following the law." A $600,000 sexual harassment settlement has been reached in the Mario Batali case. [Read the story]
  • "Sex work saved my life." Two competing bills in New York to protect sex workers take different tacks: One would punish pimps and customers, while the other would decriminalize the entire trade. [Read the story]

In Her Words is edited by Francesca Donner. Our art director is Catherine Gilmore-Barnes, and our photo editor is Maura Foley.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here to get future installments. Write to us at inherwords@nytimes.com. Follow us on Instagram at @nytgender.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for In Her Words from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

instagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Politics: Why America isn’t getting the Jan. 6 investigation it needs

A national consensus on the riot is now as much of a fantasy as any false-flag conspiracy theory.
Author Headshot

By Lisa Lerer

National Political Correspondent

Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your wrap-up of the week in national politics. I'm Lisa Lerer, your host.

From left, Representatives Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks listened as Representative Kelly Armstrong spoke during a news conference this week.Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times

Unlike some of my colleagues, I wasn't in the Capitol on Jan. 6, huddling in the hallways as a violent mob rampaged through the building.

Instead, like many of you, I was transfixed by the horrifying images on my television. In the days and months that followed, more disturbing footage would come out — videos of beatings and rioting, photographs of broken glass and blood. Since then, 20 people have pleaded guilty to charges related to their involvement in that deadly day.

What happened on Jan. 6 is no mystery; we all saw it on our screens. And yet more than six months later, we don't all see it the same way.

"It was the media that went out and pushed this whole narrative about 'this was an insurrection' and 'this was just way too out of hand' and 'these are not patriots,'" said Maura, who spoke in a recent focus group of Trump supporters from Arizona. Calling it a largely "peaceful" day, she said: "Nothing could be further from the truth. It was just a bunch of people who were overexuberant."

"One hundred percent orchestrated by antifa and the left; one hundred percent," said Annette, another Trump supporter. "There were a lot of people who went down for the right reasons, but not the ones who caused the riots. Not the ones who caused violence."

Jeff saw an even more nefarious plot: "It goes a lot deeper than antifa," he said. "I think it goes to George Soros and all the people in government that are bought and part of the deep state. They were trying to set up a false-flag event."

ADVERTISEMENT

"I don't even really think about it much," Kurt said. "It wasn't an insurrection. Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 was a protest."

I agreed to identify these Trump supporters in Arizona by only their first names so I could listen in to the focus group. It was moderated by Sarah Longwell for the Republican Accountability Project, which conducted voter interviews throughout the Trump administration.

Polling shows that these attitudes are widely shared throughout the Republican Party. Less than four in 10 people who voted for Donald J. Trump in 2020 said they strongly disapproved of the actions taken by people who forced their way into the Capitol, compared with 60 percent of all Americans, according to new polling released this past week by CBS News. Narrow majorities of Trump voters said they would describe the attack as an example of "patriotism" or "defending freedom." A larger share of Americans called it an effort to overthrow the government, an attempt to overturn the election or an insurrection.

Some of this sentiment reflects how conservative media has covered — or, perhaps, not covered — the siege. The events of Jan. 6 have been mentioned about four times as often on CNN and MSNBC as on Fox News, according to an analysis of television news clips. And it certainly reflects how dominant partisanship has become in our politics.

ADVERTISEMENT

But these beliefs also show how difficult it will be for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to persuade large parts of the country that her select committee is conducting a truthful and nonpartisan investigation into the Jan. 6 riot. Republicans in Congress can opt out of participating in a bipartisan investigation into one of the most shocking events in the history of American politics with little fear of backlash from their base. In fact, many of their voters don't want to hear much about the Jan. 6 attack at all.

Others are clearly looking for their leaders to defend rioters' actions that day. That's partly why Pelosi rejected two of Representative Kevin McCarthy's picks for the committee, prompting McCarthy, the minority leader, to pull all of his Republican nominations from the panel.

Those two selections, Representatives Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio, had openly expressed hostility to the mission of the committee and trafficked in revisionist history about the siege, and they may be material witnesses to the events leading up to that day.

Would keeping Jordan and Banks on the committee have helped build credibility for the effort among Republican voters? That seems unlikely, given that both had already broadcast their intention to undermine the effort.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pelosi can still argue that her panel is bipartisan. It will include Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, and reports suggest that she could add Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, also a Republican. Both lawmakers are reviled by their party's base for attacking Trump's effort to overturn the election and are unlikely to be seen as credible messengers by many Republicans.

McCarthy, meanwhile, has vowed to conduct his own investigation.

So after months of negotiation, the end result is likely to be two panels, one led by Democrats and the other by Republicans. It's a situation that encapsulates our divided political moment: Whatever the process, the testimony or the findings, the results of either committee are unlikely to be trusted by voters from the opposing party. And reaching any kind of national consensus about what happened on that awful day feels like as much of a fantasy as any false-flag conspiracy theory.

A deeply fractured America may be getting the investigations into the Jan. 6 attack that it deserves. But they're certainly not the ones the country needs.

Drop us a line!

We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We'll try to answer it. Have a comment? We're all ears. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

By the numbers: $11.04 billion

That's how much more costly the Tokyo Olympics are than the London Olympics were in 2012, the next most expensive.

… Seriously

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Thanks for reading. On Politics is your guide to the political news cycle, delivering clarity from the chaos.

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 onpolitics@nytimes.com.

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018