The 2018 Congressional Elections May Be in Danger

On December 9th of last year, The New York Times published a groundbreaking article titled “Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says” in response to multiple intelligence community reports concluding that Russian operatives attempted to influence the general election in President Trump’s favor against former Secretary Clinton. The article provides a thorough analysis of how and when Russia was able to enter the American cyberspace: by hacking Clinton campaign and DNC emails, propagating “fake news” on social media outlets, and undermining important Democratic party officials. These efforts effectively fabricated a political climate that, in the end, hurt the Democratic party candidate and helped the Republican party candidate come to power. A groundbreaking revelation, indeed.

The narrative that Russia infiltrated and influenced the presidential election of 2016 has been one of, if not the, the most reported-on stories in recent months, as media outlets and politicians on both sides of the aisle have decried and denounced it as unprecedented and undemocratic. Many journalists and reporters have eloquently offered their highly-nuanced opinions on the topic, and yet, there appears to be something missing.

A brief segment of The Rachel Maddow Show on March 16th picked up on what is missing in the overall “Russia” narrative, however. Though Maddow did not have the time allotment to fully flesh her argument out, she did, in fact, raise the rather disturbing point that the Presidential election was not the only victim of Russia’s hacking operation—Democratic house candidates were as well. Maddow’s segment most likely ties back to a New York Times article that similarly laid out the specifics for how Russians affected South Florida congressional campaigns during election season.

The scenarios described in the article offer profound insight into how political races can drastically change if cybersecurity is infringed upon. Annette Taddeo, a runner-up in her district’s election states, “I just can’t describe it any other way. Our entire internal strategy plan was made public, and suddenly all this material was out there and could be used against me.” This illustrates that the hackers targeted politicians they believed would be particularly vulnerable to leaks, regardless of whether or not the information leaked was controversial. In other words, Taddeo’s leaked documents were not compromising to how the citizens in her district viewed her character, but rather they compromised the very foundations and strategies of the campaign she was running, which was equally as destructive. One can conclude that these hackers gathered a significant amount of voter-attitude information in the districts before calculating who to attack. After the proper information was collected, the trigger was pulled, and chaos in South Florida’s political arena accordingly ensued.

This is disturbing. The notion that a foreign actor, or any influence, for that matter, can uninvitedly sway important elections whenever it feels the need to is alarming, to say the least.

It is important to note that the United States could potentially be on the verge of a new normal with regard to public opinion about foreign officials hacking domestic elections. The American public’s indifference to the intelligence community’s reports about the Russian hacking of the general election is only part of this new normal. In addition, there could be a large increase in foreign influence, perhaps by Russia, in the upcoming 2018 midterm congressional elections, which could have grave consequences for the Democrats.

There are 33 Senate-seat elections taking place in 2018 with Democrats hoping to keep their 23 already-held seats in control. Certain races, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania, may be contentious, as some incumbent Democrats will attempt to hold seats in largely-Republican states where President Trump secured the electoral votes. To many Democrats, it becomes understandably difficult to not be overly grieved that Republicans have control of the both houses of Congress. Had Russia not intervened, however, many of those Democrats would most likely accept the losses as “politics as usual” in the ebb and flow of political party control. Republicans would (probably) feel the same sentiment if the roles were reversed.

“Politics as usual” may not be applicable in 2018, however. Who is to say there won’t be more hacking efforts by Russian operatives? Having already successfully influenced the largest election in the nation, it would come as no surprise if hackers attempted to infiltrate and hack campaign offices; therefore, perhaps putting undeserving Republicans in office. Those who are less wary about this occurring argue that foreign influences don’t actually hack elections and voting booths, thus, in essence, they are not hacking or really influencing the election. That misses the point completely, quite frankly.

Influencing elections can simply be changing voter attitudes and providing certain candidates with unfair advantages over others. Any inkling of foreign influence on congressional elections in 2018 should alarm and disturb all politicians in Washington, no matter how small or insignificant. Action needs to be taken to ensure these issues do not persist—only time will tell if the United States properly defends itself against the undermining of its democracy.

- James Sabia

When Lady Liberty Wasn't For Immigrants

Anti-immigration policies are not new to the American political scene, and the ‘Muslim ban’ is just another policy in a long tradition of isolationist and xenophobic political practices. Critics of the ban often cite America’s strong tradition of immigration as a defense of liberal immigration policies, but the United States is not just a country with a tradition of openness–it is also a country plagued by history of rampant xenophobia and nativism. The simplistic narrative of America as a “nation of immigrants” ignores its past with religious persecution, immigration quotas, and the rejection of Jewish refugees during the holocaust. So when criticizing the travel ban for discriminating against immigrants based on religion or race, is it effective to use the narrative, or the cliché, that America has a proud history of immigration? Ignoring the history of xenophobia in the United States leads to watered-down rhetoric that denies immigrants and refugees the defense they deserve against a ban based on nationality or religion. It is imperative that Americans understand our history of nativism starting with the modern-day symbol of immigration to the United States: the Statue of Liberty

The Statue of Liberty, which we associate with immigration to the United States, was not always a symbol of openness and acceptance. In 1865, Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi conceived the idea of giving America a gift to honor 100 years of an independent United States. Bartholdi also intended for it to celebrate Lincoln and abolition, but by the time he gathered enough support to build the statue, the country was mired in the Jim Crow Era, and the statue largely lost its identity as a celebration of abolitionism1. When it finally opened, the Statue of Liberty was a symbol of Franco-American relations and freedom from tyranny, while also acting as the gatekeeper of the United States.

Nativism and xenophobia grew with the wave of German and Irish immigrants during the 1880s, and Americans became concerned about the number of people coming into the country. Historically Catholic and poor, Irish immigrants were seen as a huge threat to Protestant New Yorkers. Thomas Nast, a political cartoonist from the era, illustrated many anti-Irish images which reflected the political climate of the time. His cartoons compared Catholic immigrants to nefarious crocodiles and portrayed Irish people as drunken fools. Political art at the time, like the Judge Magazine cover titled “Proposed Emigrant Dumping Site,” depicted American xenophobia rather vividly. The illustration on the front shows the Statue of Liberty holding up her skirt in disgust as immigrants land on Liberty Island around her feet. This cover highlights Americans’ opinions about immigrants taking refuge in the US. Many feared that Europe was sending its worst people to America and that immigrants would contaminate the country. The United States’ history of immigration is deeply rooted in religious discrimination. A Muslim ban hardly seems farfetched in the context of America’s history with religious persecution and immigration quotas.

The idea of controlling immigration into the United States based on nationality or ethnicity is also an essential part of American history. Historically, the US government only supported immigration that conformed to “American Ideals.” In 1882, President Charles Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act into law, which was the first U.S. federal law that restricted immigration based on nationality. America’s approval of immigration was limited to traditional western immigration, and did not welcome Asian immigrants. This ban tore families apart and created a huge people-smuggling industry. It also shaped modern-day cities. Chinatowns resulted from violence and racism that prevented Chinese Americans from assimilating into the United States, as property laws made it extremely difficult for them to move outside Chinatowns. Later in 1924, President Calvin Coolidge expanded the ban to include most Asian countries with the National Origins Act and set quotas for the number of Southern and Eastern European immigrants, specifically Eastern European Jews.

In 1939, the US government infamously turned away a ship of Jewish families who fled Nazi Germany. The SS St. Louis carried more than 900 Jews who escaped on a German luxury liner, but they were sent back to Europe for not having the proper paperwork. As a result, 254 passengers died. Anti-Semitism and nativism overruled American’s compassion for refugees, and in that moment the United States of America threw away everything Bartholdi had admired and praised it for. This tradition of immigration is not a defense against a travel ban that denies refugees safety–it is one that condemns them to the mercy of a long history of racism, religious persecution, and xenophobia.

The US government did not repeal the National Origins Act until 1943, when it decided it was hypocritical to ban immigrants from US allied nations in World War II. Fascism showed the dangers of trying to create a racially-pure state, and America attempted to distance itself from racial purity. Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, “The New Colossus” popularized the Statue of Liberty’s connection to immigration with its famous line: “Give me your tired, your poor.” In her poem, Lazarus characterized the Statue of Liberty as welcoming weary immigrants to the United States. To this day, the Statue of Liberty is immortalized an icon of welcoming people of all ethnicities and backgrounds into America.

Falling back on American tradition is not an effective way of condemning discrimination or racism. America is a nation of immigrants, and it is important to remember that. However, we are also a nation that let fear override our compassion for others with disastrous results. Refugees and immigrants trying to come to the United States deserve a better defense. Clichéd arguments do not add to the conversation about immigration, in fact, they impede the possibility of reform and progress. If liberals are going to use history as a talking point, they need to talk about the historical consequences of xenophobia. The debate has to move away from an argument about tradition and become a nuanced discussion about human rights and current policies.

- Jessica Steele

1. Berenson, E. (2012). Statue of Liberty. Yale University Press.        

The Trump Administration Needs a Pragmatic Israel-Palestine Policy

With knowledge of recent accelerations in Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, President Trump has continued Obama’s long tradition of discouraging any further expansion of Israeli presence in the area. Throughout his campaign Trump insisted that his foreign policy would differ dramatically from that of the Obama administration, and also appeared to be heavily in favor of maintaining strong ties with Israel. He suggested moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, calling it “the eternal capital of the Jewish people,” a move that would anger many Middle Eastern countries. His choice to appoint attorney David Friedman, a conservative in strong opposition to any ban on construction activity in the West Bank, as ambassador to Israel also seemed to reflect the position that he would take on the issue of Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory.

But Trump’s suggestion to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold back on settlements does not seem in line with these actions, and it brings into question whether or not he will rise to the challenge posed by Netanyahu to distinguish his foreign policy from that of the White House that preceded him. In a recent meeting with Netanyahu, Trump did back away from Obama’s traditional two-state approach while still asking for a pause on settlement construction. On the subject of a solution, he stated that he “like(s) the one that both parties like” and is “very happy with the one that both parties like.” He can “live with either one.” His opinion was simplistic, and he does not seem to have a very nuanced view on the issue. This blase approach to foreign policy in such a contested region is jarring, drawing the ire of the foreign policy community. While it is true that the humanitarian implications of “letting things sort themselves out” puts thousands of lives on the line in a way previously unseen, it is also true that this approach, abandoning the hard-line position that the United States has usually taken, is new. And when it comes to Palestine and Israel, the old approach hasn’t been working. It remains to be seen if Trump and his administration will be able help negotiate a solution that is acceptable for both parties. Even if he is not successful in resolving the tense situation, as none of the three presidents before him have been, an inability to make the United States central to the resolution process could be the best strategy to come out of the White House yet: doing nothing.

            Term after term, three U.S. presidents have reached no lasting solution despite their ardent support and pursuit of a two-state solution in the region. A two-state solution is usually painted as the ethical option among those typically discussed in conventional foreign policy, a discussion which is boiled down to two sides, a dichotomy which tends to eliminate the shades of grey. It comes down to a one-state or two-state solution; support for Israel or for Palestine. Interestingly enough, Trump seems to rest among the shades of grey in his approach, along with almost every other American politician who speaks on the issue. He is friendly towards Israel, or so he states, yet he has also echoed Obama in asking Netanyahu to hold back on expanding the West Bank settlements for the time being. Obama was similar, maintaining pro-Israeli legislation while being critical of their activities.

            Obama’s outlasting legacy here is important to how the Trump administration should approach this foreign policy issue. Where Obama failed was in his steadfast obsession with the issue of settlements and not much else. The issue itself is as nuanced as approaches to dealing with it are. At this point, not much else can be said on the settlements. They are growing slowly, and around 90% of this is because of natural population growth. The opposition to settlements has become more relevant recently because of accelerations in construction, but still this should not be the only issue the United States chooses to focus on if its goal is truly to foster peace between the two nations.

            Trump and his advisors should recognize this and focus their efforts on security and the future. If they are going to follow in Obama’s footsteps and reiterate solely an aversion to settlements, then perhaps it might be best for the United States to stay out of the issue entirely. Elliott Abrams from Foreign Policy says it best when he advises that “the better course for the new American leader would be to put an end to dreaming and instead seek pragmatic changes that can improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

-Lexie Schwarz

The Importance of Archiving During a Trump Presidency

Fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality. This commonly-understood definition of the word has, whether inadvertently or deliberately, been misconstrued, misappropriated, and called into question by the Trump administration. Though this has been present throughout President Trump’s entire campaign, it peaked after recent media reports suggested that his inauguration crowd was particularly small in comparison to former President Obama’s, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer dubiously proclaimed in a press conference that “this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period”. In response to these reports and to Spicer’s rhetoric, Senior Aide to the President Kellyanne Conway proclaimed that some of his statements are “alternative facts.” Alternative facts are not facts. They are lies.

There is much to be said about how dangerous the notion of an “alternative fact” is, especially when it is coming from the White House, and more specifically, the leader of our country. Instead of delving into the the glaring problems surrounding the Trump administration blatantly lying to the American public, it is important to acknowledge that certain institutions are in jeopardy. Think tanks, scholarly research centers, and even government agencies work to produce concrete facts, not alternative ones. In the next four years, these institutions may face profound challenges from the White House for simply doing their jobs unbiasedly and correctly.

One of the most important examples of this phenomenon happened at the end of January, just days after President Trump was inaugurated. On January 25th, the Associated Press released a statement from the White House stating, “The Trump administration is mandating that any studies or data from scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public”. Interpreted, in the terms of Trump supporters, both literally and seriously, this statement essentially signifies that any data that EPA scientists compile that counter the White House’s agenda will be hidden in the shadows away from the public. This could potentially conceal information about climate change that is life-threatening to not only the United States, but also to the world. Former EPA Staffers have explained that many reports were viewed by government officials “lightly” in the past, and that content was “rarely ever edited,” making the White House’s new protocol highly unorthodox, to say the least.

Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institute explains, “Unlike ordinary political lying, which tries to persuade people of particular things that are false, disinformation aims to sow doubt and cynicism about everything that’s true”. Not only does this lying affect how the White House’s relationship with the media develops, but this ultimately undermines the efforts of a fact-checking, scholarly institute such as Brookings in conducting bipartisan and objective research. This think tank and other think tanks alike rely on the objectivity of the US Government in allowing them to publish their findings to the American public about the effects of public policy. If the Trump administration designs legislation to cut funding, by perhaps creating constraints on donation amounts, to certain think tanks, a snowball effect could be created where research information could become heavily partisan, perhaps even borderline propaganda. The American public ultimately loses out.

Orwellian analogies aside, an important way to combat a paranoid administration is through archiving. Archiving, the storing of documents and data in safe spaces, can preserve large amounts of useful information. One of the largest archives in the country is the National Archives. The National Archives is an administrative organization that focuses on storing and collecting both personal U.S. citizens’ documents as well as the federal government’s important documents. In an age of rapid technological growth, the Archives is creating new ways to save information discovered by governmental agencies so that they can be released to the public at any point for researching purposes.

Although the National Archives has its own initiative in which it is attempting to store online information (known as the Electronics Records Archives), it is not the only major player in the battle to preserve factual information. In December of last year, a volunteer effort called “End of Term Presidential Harvest 2016” was created by various libraries across the nation in an attempt to archive important government web pages that the Trump administration may deem “unimportant” or “trivial” into library databases. An important point to note here is that the National Archives and this volunteer campaign are organizations independent of the U.S. government, even if they are tasked with storing and releasing federal government documents. This potentially safeguards their efforts of preservation from impending, strict anti-”fact” legislation pushed through Congress.

In the ensuing battle against “alternative facts,” the media has a prominent, immediate role in calling out the lies propagated by the White House. Archiving organizations, however, have the more profound role of ensuring that actual facts are forever saved and accessible. These organizations are the genesis in the battle against dangerous subjectivity. In the next 4 years, the American public must realize the Trump administration’s dangerous subjectivity with regard to facts and must be prepared to combat it in any way possible. The power of archiving highlights one powerful principle that must be understood: objectivity is never mild.

-James Sabia 

A Philanthropic Response to Voting Rights Restrictions: Shelby County vs. Holder - Present

Introduction.

            On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 split, freed states from the section of the Voting Rights Act that required advance federal approval for a change in their states’ election laws. In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg compared the court’s decision to “[throw] out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”[1] Since this time, many states have passed laws that make voting harder, largely impacting minority voter turn out. “These [restrictive laws] include new measures that require voter ID or proof of citizenship, eliminate early voting days or locations, restrict or shut polling locations, and a myriad other tactics designed to unfairly limit and discourage voter participation by African-American, Latino, Asian, young, and lower-income Americans.”[2]

            Through litigation, the creation of donor collaborative funds, technology advancement, policy advocacy, and voter outreach, philanthropy has worked to defend the right of Americans to participate in their government’s elections. In this report, the case for philanthropy’s further involvement in the fight for voting rights will be made, based on its previous successes and the nature of its role in American democracy. The case will also be made that the expansion of voting rights is, in fact, a nonpartisan issue that philanthropies can freely support. The assumption made in this report, and by many foundations supporting voting rights activism, that higher voter participation is strengthening to American democracy.

The Role of Philanthropy.

Philanthropy has emerged as the most effective actor in the fight to protect and restore voting rights in America. Multifaceted in its nature, it’s improbable that the issue of voting rights can be righted by the same style of blunt federal ruling that endangered them in the first place; rather, adaptable and nuanced approaches funded through philanthropy are far more impactful. Voting rights has become a partisan issue in government, with restrictive voting laws overwhelmingly coming from the Republican Party, which has full control of the governors’ mansions and state legislatures in twenty-three states compared to the Democrats’ control of just four states[3]. By giving the states control of election law, voting restrictions have reflected this GOP-dominated composition.

Philanthropies working to expand voting rights, however, are motivated by nonpartisan mission statements that aim to “strengthen democracy” such as The Ford Foundation, The MacArthur Foundation, and Omidyar Network’s Democracy Fund. These funders have given more than $400 million in grants to “Campaigns, Elections, and Voting” initiatives, the largest portion of $198 million going specifically towards Voter Education, Registration, and Turnout.[4] “[Foundations] are often driven by a belief that a high level of voter turnout, regardless of the voter’s political affiliation, is an important indicator of a healthy democracy, and that more engagement by voters will ultimately lead to better policy outcomes.”[5] Many philanthropists agree with Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice, when he says, “Voting is a nonpartisan issue.”[6] It is, in many ways, similar to the philanthropic efforts to support the civil rights movement – while opposed in government by one political party, the philanthropic principle behind their efforts was not in support of one party or the other.

However, when pitted clearly against the platform of a national political party, donors and foundations may hesitate to openly support voting rights efforts. Money that might have gone to 501(c)3 organizations working to expand voting rights purely in the philanthropic space may go to lobbying efforts or campaign donations, instead. In this report, the various ways philanthropy can impact the fight for expanding voting rights are illustrated by current efforts by foundations and not-for-profits. “Since 2011, almost 200 foundations have made about 1,300 grants to almost 500 nonprofits to further voter education, registration, and turnout.”[7] Not only will the great effect made by philanthropy be shown, but it will also show areas for further engagement from the philanthropic sector. The philanthropic timeline, after all, exceeds governmental term limits and election cycles. As Waldman of the Brennan Center makes clear in a panel discussion for philanthropists interested in strengthening democracy, “this is a central fight and it will never be won permanently, but it is a fight we must continue.”[8]

Current Philanthropic Efforts.

            There are myriad approaches taken by philanthropists to strengthen American democracy. These efforts, in many cases, directly correlate or overlap with efforts to expand voting rights. Some philanthropies fund litigation or litigate themselves in the face of voter suppression. Others focus on improving the administration of elections in America through technology. Still others work more structurally, creating policy proposals and conducting research on the effects of Shelby and restrictive voting laws on America’s democracy. Finally, with the recognition that some aspect of disenfranchisement lies not only in law but also in public perception that one’s vote “doesn’t count” or “can’t change anything,” other philanthropic efforts engage with voters and encourage democratic participation in communities that historically have low voter turnout.

            Litigation is undoubtedly key in the expansion of voting rights, as it is the tool of the people when they dissent with the government. However, litigation efforts find themselves underfunded due to “foundations’ [reluctance] to fund anything that’s going to court.”[9] Taking the government to court, while a defensive practice in response to a restrictive law, can still be seen as aggressive from the perspective of philanthropists, especially those trying to maintain a purely nonpartisan appearance. However, the legal defense funds and litigation groups are, by most accounts, on the front lines, allowing other types of not-for-profits to operate more structurally. Geri Mannion, director of Carnegie Corporation's Strengthening U.S. Democracy Program, which does not actively litigate, makes it clear that “if it weren’t for the all the great legal defense funds and other litigation groups, we would be in much worse shape.”[10] Not only that, but they work with the policy institutes and research organizations, using data they use to defend their legal cases.

            The Brennan Center for Justice represents the multifaceted nature of voting rights by engaging in litigation, policy advocacy, and research. In June of 2015, The Brennan Center represented the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Arizona and Kansas affiliates, in a lawsuit opposing harsh state laws that require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The League joined the United States Election Assistance Commission as defendants in Kris W. Kobach et al. v. United States Election Assistance Commission. The Supreme Court of the United States let stand the 10th Circuit's previous ruling that the states “may not force applicants using the federal voter registration form to show documents proving citizenship when registering to vote in federal races,” ruling in favor of The Brennan Center and their co-defendants.[11] This is one example of many advancements in voting rights that have been made in the courts. Litigation, in many ways, is seen as the “boots on the ground” philanthropic response to restrictive voting laws. It is rapid response and yields a direct result from the judiciary system. However, the court, like philanthropy, is not intended to be political but ends up in the crossfire between political parties often. When one side of the case is the government, the court can become even more political. Geri Mannion directly rebukes this idea, declaring “total disagreement with that idea [that voting rights is partisan]. Lower income people, young people, people of color—they may tend to be more progressive, but not always, and not always over the long term.”[12] However, as mentioned before, this highly visible status dissuades some foundations and philanthropists from funding organizations with strategy dependent on litigation.

            Litigation cannot be, and is not, the only tactic used by philanthropy to expand voting rights, for some of the obvious complications we have seen in the past. The beginning of the current era of voting restrictions began with a Supreme Court decision, Shelby County v. Holder, which was decided against voting rights activists. Additionally, judicial rulings quickly reveal their loopholes and exceptions, which are then exploited by the side that lost in court. After all, voting rights activism was activated by the Shelby decision, not entirely stopped when one court case went against them. The pivotal role that litigation and the judicial branch play in voting rights expansion is undeniable. It is one of the reasons the issue is so multifaceted. Philanthropy, in its uniquely ambiguous role in American society, is well poised to fill the gaps left in litigation strategy. The Brennan Center’s own president, Michael Waldman, said: “This is a fight that must be won in the courts and in the court of public opinion.”[13]

One way to fight in the court of public opinion is through another “boots on the ground” strategy – direct voter outreach and education. Jay Beckner, President of the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, advises, “If your foundation is worried about partisanship, you can certainly fund public education on [voting rights] issues—programs for young people, or programs for new citizens.”[14] The $400 million of foundation grants that have gone to Campaigns, Elections, and Voting since 2011 is dwarfed by the $1.2 billion given to Civic Participation. While the legal restrictions that explicitly prevent people from voting exist, other aspects of the law are simply convoluted or commonly misinterpreted in a way that dissuades voters from turning out. As voting rights have become increasingly volatile, laws can change from one election cycle to the next. This creates a need for nonpartisan voter education, like the kind offered by the Voter Participation Center, funded in large part by a $3.7 million grant made by the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program.[15] This is a striking example of a funder that would prefer to remain safely nonpartisan. The Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program is a donor-advised fund, responsible for grant-making in the name of its customers. While it may not affect the striking, sudden change we see in litigation, voter outreach programs further compels the case that voting rights is an effort to strengthen democracy, not a left-leaning foundation initiative, bank rolled by the few.

In order to have a participatory electorate, the electorate must understand the administration of elections. The effects of shallow voter education can be varied but almost inevitably result in lower voting rates. This is not necessarily an effect of any restrictive voting law in particular; however, low voter participation becomes a cultural norm in communities that are systematically disenfranchised by those very laws. Voter education can combat the perceptions that lead to low voter turnout, such as the belief that voting is difficult or partial understanding of one’s rights as a voter. In a study done by the Educational Testing Service after low minority voter turn out in the 2012 election, Fault Lines in Our Democracy: Civic Knowledge, Voting Behavior and Civic Engagement in the United States,[16] it was revealed “many nonvoters in recent national elections indicated they were not interested in voting or did not believe their vote mattered.” These widespread misconceptions can have as much of a measurable effect on voter turnout in the same communities that are typically affected by restrictive voting laws.

            While litigation and voter outreach can be considered the most visible efforts of the voting rights philanthropic movement, there is important structural work being funded by philanthropy, as well. Specifically, technological research and development and policy advocacy are areas where foundations are aggressively advancing the way voting rights are thought of. In this sense, “foundations serve as a democratic society’s ‘risk capital,’ a potent discovery mechanism for experimentation and innovation in social policy over a long time horizon with uncertain results,”[17] as advocated by Professor Rob Reich of Stanford. While these areas go hand in hand, we’ll first address policy advocacy, as it is foundational in all non-governmental efforts to affect governmental behavior.

            As the litigation efforts of the Brennan Center for Justice attempt to strike down restrictive laws, the advocacy branch of the Brennan Center put forth a cornerstone “Voter Registration Modernization” policy proposal. “The Brennan Center’s signature proposal to modernize voting would harness proven technology to ensure that every eligible voter is permanently registered. The move would add 50 million to the rolls, cost less, and curb the potential for fraud.”[18] While it’s unlikely than a not-for-profit’s policy proposal is adopted holistically, it is an important tool for advocacy. By providing solutions, backed by research that the government was unlikely to fund in the first place, these policy proposals can be used by sympathetic governmental actors. After the Brennan Center released its policy proposal for voter registration modernization, five states have authorized automatic voter registration at DMVs, at least thirty-nine states currently or will soon offer online voter registration, and fifteen states offer Election Day voter registration.[19] Georgetown University Law Center’s Voting Rights Institute was among the Brennan Center for Justice and NEO Philanthropy in receiving prestigious MacArthur Foundation grants. One of the leaders of the voting rights litigation, Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, made the value of policy advocacy clear on the same panel Geri Mannion of the Carnegie Corporation encouraged funding litigation: “It is important to support organizations doing the structural work, the policy work.”[20] This support across organizations and voting rights strategies shows not only how multifaceted the issue is but also how many opportunities there are for philanthropic intervention.

            In the newest area of voting rights philanthropy, technology advancement is seen as a key to both higher civic engagement and modernized voter registration, creating an easier registration process that allows for expanded voter rights. Clearly, since the Brennan Center’s cornerstone voting rights policy proposal is on the modernization of voting systems, technology plays a large role in the future of voting administration and, therefore, voting rights. On the forefront of the area is The Democracy Fund, a member of the Omidyar Network. Its mission encapsulates technology’s potential to revolutionize the American voting process: “Data-driven policies and new technologies can help reduce barriers to voting, improve integrity and public trust in the electoral system, and reduce the dependency of our leaders on special financial interests.”[21] Technology advances can work in conjunction with policy, as suggested in the Brennan Center’s proposal, or stand on their own to improve voting rights without government reform. The Democracy Fund supports the Pew Charitable Trusts, most recently with a $2 million grant, to fund its “suite of technological solutions to address concerns with both access and integrity in our voter registration system.”[22] Functional and user-friendly voter administration is a public good that should be supplied by the government. Using Professor Rob Reich’s argument for the ways that foundations can enhance American democracy, foundations are uniquely well equipped to “overcome problems in public good production by diminishing government orthodoxy and decentralizing the definition and distribution of public goods.”[23] With Republican control in federal, state, and local government, the supply of this public good is unlikely to be subsidized by the government in the near future. These efforts are independent of any change in the law and yet still expand voting rights.

Further Philanthropic Involvement.

The current models for investment in litigation, voter education, policy advocacy, and technological research and development can be employed by various foundations and not for profits, considering the wide range of focuses and expertise employed in these fields. Foundations and donor collaboratives are providing necessary funding for the not-for-profits engaged in these efforts. The issue of protecting and expanding voting rights is not close to over. “In 2016, seventeen states had new laws on the books making voting more difficult for the first time in a large-scale, high turnout, national election.”[24] Foundations, along with continuing to support and execute programs toward voting rights expansion, should work to provide sustained funding for the organizations involved in expanding voting rights, rather than just supporting these organizations in election years. As Judith Browne Dianis, the President of the Advancement Project, makes clear, “funding for our efforts tends to be cyclical whereas our work is anything but.”[25] The nature of philanthropy extends beyond term limits and election cycles, a strength in this politically charged battle.

Philanthropy in America occupies a space endowed with influence and independence. It serves as a complement and challenge to American democracy. It is within this space that it must become the champion for voting rights, strengthening the very nation that subsidizes philanthropic organizations with its taxpayers’ dollars. All the things philanthropy works toward for the public good are aided with greater voter participation. It is often questioned whether foundations are truly democratic or if they give outsized influence to those with money. While this debate is not the focus of this report, it is my belief that expanding democratic participation is an incredibly worthwhile pursuit for foundations. With a government truly by the people and for the people, there will be greater representation for those who don’t currently have a voice in government, the same people who turn to philanthropy. Strengthening democracy in turn strengthens philanthropy.

  -Alaina Haworth

--------------

[1] Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013).

[2] "Right to Vote," Advancement Project, The Partisan Playbook, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.advancementproject.org/campaigns/Protect-Your-Vote.

[3] K.K. Rebecca Lai, Karl Russell, and Jasmine C. Lee, "In a Further Blow to Democrats, Republicans Increase Their Hold on State Governments," The New York Times, November 11, 2016, accessed December 13, 2016.

[4] "Foundation Maps | Foundation Center," Foundations Funding U.S. Democracy, Distribution Chart: Campaigns, Elections, and Voting, accessed December 13, 2016, https://maps.foundationcenter.org/#/charts/.

[5] Born, Kelly. "The Role of Philanthropy and Nonprofits in Increasing US Voter Turnout." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 25, 2016. Accessed December 12, 2016. https://ssir.org/increasing_voter_turnout/entry/the_role_of_philanthropy_and_nonprofits_in_increasing_us_voter_turnout.

[6] Ablow, Gail. "Don't Give Up on Democracy." Carnegie Corporation of New York. November 2, 2016. Accessed December 13, 2016. https://www.carnegie.org/news/articles/dont-give-democracy-encouraging-citizenship/.

[7] Born, Kelly. "The Role of Philanthropy and Nonprofits in Increasing US Voter Turnout." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 25, 2016.

[8] Kristen Clarke et al., "Will Philanthropy Join in the Fight to Vote?," interview by Geri Mannion, Philanthropy New York (audio blog), June 16, 2016, 0:21:04, accessed December 12, 2016, https://philanthropynewyork.org/event-calendar/will-philanthropy-join-fight-vote.

[9] Kristen Clarke et al., "Will Philanthropy Join in the Fight to Vote?," interview by Geri Mannion, Philanthropy New York (audio blog), June 16, 2016, 1:31:28.

[10] Ablow, Gail. "Don't Give Up on Democracy." Carnegie Corporation of New York. November 2, 2016.

[11] "Kobach Et Al. v. The United States Election Assistance Commission | Brennan Center for Justice." Kobach Et Al. v. The United States Election Assistance Commission | Brennan Center for Justice. June 29, 2015. Accessed December 13, 2016. https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/kobach-et-al-v-united-states-election-assistance-commission.

[12] Ablow, Gail. "Don't Give Up on Democracy." Carnegie Corporation of New York. November 2, 2016.

[13] Kristen Clarke et al., "Will Philanthropy Join in the Fight to Vote?," interview by Geri Mannion, Philanthropy New York (audio blog), June 16, 2016, 0:3:53.

[14] Ablow, Gail. "Don't Give Up on Democracy." Carnegie Corporation of New York. November 2, 2016.

[15] "Foundation Maps | Foundation Center," Foundations Funding U.S. Democracy, Distribution Chart: Campaigns, Elections, and Voting, accessed December 13, 2016, https://maps.foundationcenter.org/#/charts/.

[16] Coley, Richard J. "Fault Lines in Our Democracy." Fault Lines in Our Democracy: Home. April 2012. Accessed December 15, 2016. http://www.ets.org/s/research/19386/.

[17] Reich, Rob. "Repugnant to the Whole Idea of Democracy? On the Role of Foundations in Democratic Societies." PS: Political Science & Politics 49, no. 03 (2016): 466-72. doi:10.1017/s1049096516000718.

[18] "Voter Registration Modernization | Brennan Center for Justice," Voter Registration Modernization | Brennan Center for Justice, Voter Registration Modernization, accessed December 13, 2016, https://www.brennancenter.org/voter-registration-modernization.

[19] "Automatic Voter Registration and Modernization in the States | Brennan Center for Justice." Automatic Voter Registration and Modernization in the States | Brennan Center for Justice. July 12, 2016. Accessed December 13, 2016. https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voter-registration-modernization-states.

[20] Kristen Clarke et al., "Will Philanthropy Join in the Fight to Vote?," interview by Geri Mannion, Philanthropy New York (audio blog), June 16, 2016, 1:31:12.

[21] Joe Goldman, "Our Priorities," Principled Leadership & Effective Governance: Democracy Fund, Modern Elections & Money in Politics, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.democracyfund.org/priorities.

[22] Democracy Fund, "The Pew Charitable Trusts: Election Initiatives," The Pew Charitable Trusts: Election Initiatives: Democracy Fund, Innovative Solutions, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.democracyfund.org/portfolio/entry/pew-charitable-trusts-election-initiatives1.

[23] Reich, Rob. "Repugnant to the Whole Idea of Democracy? On the Role of Foundations in Democratic Societies." 

[24] Kristen Clarke et al., "Will Philanthropy Join in the Fight to Vote?," interview by Geri Mannion, Philanthropy New York (audio blog), June 16, 2016, 0:3:53.

[25] Browne, Judith. "How Foundations Are Supporting Voting Rights - PhilanTopic | PND | Foundation Center." PhilanTopic | PND | Foundation Center. November 24, 2015. Accessed December 15, 2016. http://pndblog.typepad.com/pndblog/2015/11/how-foundations-are-supporting-voting-rights.html.

Stall Pervades, As Italians Vote ‘NO’ To Change

After months of campaigning and animated political debate, Italians cast their votes in a constitutional referendum on November 4th called on by current Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Italy plunged into political and economic uncertainty as voters decisively rejected the constitutional changes called on by the referendum, with the ‘no’ vote winning by a clear margin (60%).

The referendum, a project close to Mr. Renzi’s heart and a prime concern of his administration, focused on a series of constitutional reforms that caused much controversy amongst opposing parties in Italy. By modifying certain sections of the second part of the constitution, the proposed reform was meant to affect the bicameral system of the Parliament. Conceived in the hopes of facilitating the legislative process, the power of the Senate was to be reduced, giving legislative power largely to the Chamber of Deputies.

Those campaigning for the NO side to the referendum emphasized the reforms proposed by Renzi were awarding excessive power to a single chamber of parliament and the executive branch. As exit polls began to show a significant advantage for the NO vote, opposing parties started suggesting Mr.Renzi should resign immediately.

The Premier, who had previously made the mistake of personalizing the referendum by suggesting he would resign had the NO vote won, gave his opposers an ideal occasion to oust him from power. As a result, many may have voted against him rather than against the changes the reform put forward, at the country’s loss.

The result was instantly celebrated by leaders of opposing parties who had been bitterly campaigning to reject the changes suggested by the referendum, one of the strongest voices being that of Beppe Grillo, leader of Italy’s anti-establishment Five Star Movement. The political and economic uncertainty facing the country as the premier resigned this 4th of November is significant, and might reverberate against an already weak European Union.

The referendum resulted in a significant voter turnout, with 65% of Italians casting votes at the polls throughout the country. The NO vote was victorious from region to region, with the exception of Emilia Romagna, Tuscany and Trentino Alto Adige, according to an analysis by Corriere della Sera. The strong fight against the passing of the referendum coming from the Five Star Movement accused the reform of concentrating too much power in the executive hands of Mr.Renzi.

The result of the referendum rejects a chance for Italy to modernize the country by clearing away some of the bureaucracy and foster a more efficient organization of government. It also paves the way for increasingly populist and anti-establishment sentiments that have gained widespread support across Europe in the current year.

As vowed at the beginning of this campaign, premier Renzi announced he will turn in his letter of resignation to President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella.

As for what will come forward, the political future of the country is uncertain at the moment. President Mattarella might call for a general election of 2017, in which the Five Star Movement is expected to make significant gains.

In a speech about the result of the referendum, Mr. Renzi took full responsibility for the loss on the side of the ‘yes’ front. In a heartfelt address to the nation putting an end to his time in government, Mr.Renzi acknowledged his loss and concluded that,  “Doing politics against someone is easy, doing politics for something, is better, harder but better”.

- Ludovica Grieco

Protectionism in the Modern Era

There is, and always has been, a consensus among economists that free trade is the best policy, and for much of the latter half of the 20th century, the American public has agreed. The post-Great Depression world had supposedly learned from its mistakes through the misguided policies of the 1930s. Protectionism, even if intended to shield a country from the economic plights of others, had in reality plunged the globe into deeper poverty. Of course, pockets of protectionism have existed throughout the years, but the idea was never mainstream. That is, not until the 2016 presidential race, when candidates from both the left and right had begun preaching limits to international trade and were met with intense passion from the public. If the economic profession agrees that protectionism does not and has never worked, why have the public decided to back protectionism once again?

The economists' perspective

Principally, protectionism is the belief that a country as a whole is harmed by international trade and is helped by barriers to trade. Accordingly, every economy possesses four important components when analyzing the merits of free trade. First, a country will have a relatively abundant amount of resources with which they are more naturally endowed, relative to any trade partner, like capital, high-skilled labor, low-skilled labor, land, etc. Conversely, a country will also have a relatively non-abundant amount of resources, which are not necessarily plenty in that country. Here, think of high-skilled labor in poorer countries, where there is less access to quality education. Third, countries will have industries in which they have comparative advantage in production against a trade partner, meaning it is easier for them to produce a certain good. For example, according to Frank Wolak, the US has a comparative advantage in sustainable technologies. And fourth, countries will non-comparative advantage industries in which it is more difficult for them to produce a different good.

When cross-examining resources and industries, economists agree that most resource owners and most industries end up more prosperous after free trade. Trade barriers, i.e. quotas and tariffs, cause a deadweight loss, a cost to society created by market inefficiency, borne by everyone in the economy. Protectionism is supported by those who lose from trade only in the short run, namely both relatively abundant and relatively non-abundant resource owners in non-comparative advantage industries. Breaking this down even further, relatively non-abundant resource owners are generally not wealthy enough as a group to lobby for trade protection laws. An example in the U.S. is low-skilled labor, such as factory workers. This sector of the economy found its protectionist voice in the 2016 presidential candidates rather than in representatives in Congress. Hence, the protectionism lobby lies primarily with the relatively abundant resource owners in non-comparative advantage industries. The decline of the manufacturing industry which led to the shut down factory buildings, a permanent loss for capital owners, is an example of the latter kind of resource owners. Generally speaking, factory owners will tend to be rich individuals or companies with much bigger wallets to spend on lobbying than factory workers.

Protectionism: a history, 1922-present

Congress under Republican control in the 1920s passed several protectionist laws aimed at defending American farmers. These farmers had seen a boom during World War I in exports to Europe but were experiencing a loss as Europeans recovered after the war. One of the laws, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922, raised tariffs to higher than pre-1913 levels, when a Democrat controlled Congress attempted to reverse the protectionist policies in place.

The rest of the decade proved more prosperous for the agriculture sector than expected, leading to gross overproduction and falling prices. The stock market crash of 1929 spread fears among policymakers and public alike that if America were to not protect its own economic interests, it would sink further into recession. Global trade fell 60% from 1929 to 1932, and the infamous Smoot-Tawley Tariff Act in 1930 was passed. Originally designed to provide further relief for farmers, the act resulted in tariffs on twenty thousand other imports. Economists of the time petitioned the president to veto the bill, saying, “Countries cannot permanently buy from us unless they are permitted to sell to us. And the more we restrict the importation of goods from them by means of even higher tariffs the more we reduce the possibility of our exporting to them.”

Democrats recaptured the House of Representatives in 1930 after protectionism had failed to fulfill its promises, and in 1932, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. Together, the Democratic party implemented policies that lowered tariff rates to historic lows. They would stay at those lows for many decades, through World War II, much of the Cold War, and presidential administrations of both parties.

Ronald Reagan’s administration saw a modestly burgeoning belief in protectionism propped up by increasing imports from Asia, and hundreds of bills protecting American industries in electronics, appliances, textiles, clothing, toys, and automobiles were introduced to protect American job loss. In particular, automakers and auto-workers worked together to seek trade protectionism from Japanese car imports. Reagan favored voluntary quota restrictions, but this unexpectedly led Japanese carmakers to export large luxury cars to capture the higher end of the market. This led to those same manufacturers to move their factories to the U.S., legally dodging quotas and permanently crowding the car market for American manufacturers.

The end of the 1980s and 1990s saw a rise in free trade agreements, such as the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1987 and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. These agreements were championed by Democrats attempting to capture moderate voters and Republicans dedicated to reducing barriers to commerce. Consequently, free trade had become an essential feature of 20th century American politics.

Protectionism: 21st Century

One great issue of the protectionist debate of 2016 is the abundance of misleading rhetoric that exists in evaluations of globalization and international trade. For example, Thom Hartmann in the Huffington Post concluded that “globalization is the villain here, and one that needs to be taken in hand and brought under control quickly if we don’t want to see virtually the nations of the world end up subservient to corporate control.” He floated numbers around on manufacturing, highlighting that in the 1950s, manufacturing accounted for 28% of GDP and has declined to a measly 10% in 2010. He argued a viewpoint that less manufacturing meant there was also less wealth creation. Hartmann is not technically wrong. However, his argument would have been more legitimate had he not used the definition of wealth derived from Adam Smith’s the Wealth of Nations and ignored the rest of Smith’s writing on international trade: it was positive sum and importing goods was always beneficial to the importing and exporting countries. Hartmann chose his evidence selectively and blatantly ignored evidence in the same text of the opposing view to mislead his readers. And because the Wealth of Nations may not be a mainstream read for Huffington Post’s audience, readers will proceed to take the article at face value and absorb his bias unwittingly.

A study by the Pew Research Center in 2012 began its report with, “Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future.” That study also showed that 85% of middle-class adults said it was more difficult to maintain their standard of living today than a decade ago, and 39% people blamed foreign competition. But from what information did this 39% found their distaste?

Misinformation has generated misunderstanding for the average American about who they are competing against. Economists agree that it is not trade and foreign competition but technology that has taken much of the jobs from American workers. Productivity in the 21st century has skyrocketed to new levels: self-checkout kiosks have replaced cashiers, automated machinery can now do the work of dozens of factory workers, and the Internet has made entire industries, like travel agencies and bookmakers, obsolete in less than two decades. Former CEO of McDonald’s USA Ed Rensi admitted to Fox Business Network, “If you look at the robotic devices that are coming into the restaurant industry, it's cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who's inefficient (and) making $15 an hour bagging french fries." But workers in America are not the only ones losing out to robots. In May, Foxconn Technology, a supplier for Apple and Samsung, replaced around 60,000 workers with robots in one factory in China alone. In the end, Rosenthal highlights that “many economists are skeptical that politicians, regardless of party affiliation, can accelerate what's already going on through changes to tariffs, trade pacts and such,” reiterating that protectionism is not the answer to the job loss the world’s low-skilled labor is experiencing. Trade barriers will have little to say about technological leaps forward but will also still hurt companies and countries that rely on cheaper labor to operate and survive.

Globalization, admittedly, has relocated certain jobs abroad, but not at the extent in which Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump suggested in their presidential campaigns. Major emerging markets now produce historically U.S.-dominated goods and did take incomes out of the pockets of some middle class Americans. The result included jobs shifting towards industries that were growing more slowly than others creating the infamous income and employment inequality Sanders preached. There were more opportunities for high-skilled workers and fewer for low-skilled workers leading to the stagnation in middle-class income.

The key here that economists cannot stress enough are side payments, a kind of reimbursement the government can provide to workers and capital owners in industries (the non-comparative advantage industries mentioned earlier) that lose in trade. One type of government program that rarely sees media spotlight are education programs, which allow low-skilled laborers to have the ability to transform themselves into high-skilled laborers, keeping them competitive in the high-skilled labor market of a developed economy. Another program that exists but also has little media pizzazz is the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program in which the government provides a tax credit if an individual’s income falls below a certain level. But the individual must continue working to be eligible for the program. This allows employment to stay afloat but also prevents individuals from resorting to social welfare and keeps the overall market wage low.

Despite these promising programs, the media and politicians are always in need of a political soundbite. Education programs and tax credits do not strike as much of an emotional chord as protectionism does with the middle class. The word “protect” makes them feel less forgotten but that is still not the reality of the policy. It will not protect them from their perceived slump as they believe but will doubtlessly inflict damage on the rest of the domestic and international economy in ways they could never have predicted.

- Kathy Dimaya

The Future of Brexit

“Brexit Means Brexit” proclaimed Theresa May, shortly after taking over from David Cameron as British Prime Minister, “and there will no be attempts to remain within the EU”. This sounds unambiguous and definitive but what does this circuitous phrase actually mean in reality? More importantly, has the recent High Court ruling that she cannot use the Royal Prerogative Power (the UK’s version of a Presidential Executive Order) to start negotiating an exit without seeking a Parliamentary vote derailed the process?  

The terms of membership of the EU entitles member countries to invoke Article 50 to start a two-year period of negotiation to leave, and initially May had said that this would be done in March 2017 and that she did not need to get parliament involved in the Brexit process as the “people have spoken” (in the now notorious Brexit referendum). This plan was threatened earlier this month, when the three presiding judges of the High Court determined that she was not constitutionally entitled to complete the Brexit process without an approval vote from both Houses of Parliament. An appeal has now been made to the Supreme Court which will decide on the legality of this issue in December. 

The High Court decision caused uproar from Brexit supporters. The right-wing Daily Mail, the most read English publication worldwide, had a front page article declaring the judges “ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE” and Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit movement, tweeted, “I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea the level of public anger they will provoke.” 

Although it is highly unlikely that the members of parliament would ultimately vote against Brexit, there could be a number of unforeseen consequences for May and her government team tasked with negotiating the terms of the exit. First, it is possible that if she believes she will not have enough votes in both Houses to support her,  she might have to call a general election to secure the mandate in Parliament. This would be a hazardous tactic though, as there is no certainty that the population would elect politicians who voted for Brexit and her government could be left in disarray. More probable is that with so many different opinions on how the negotiations should be managed, no consensus will be reached, thus delaying the decision on invoking Article 50, creating instability and irritation amongst the UK population and their European partners.

What the High Court decision has done is shine light on exactly how little people know about the Brexit process. A recent House of Commons Library reference emphasizes this: “What do we not know about Brexit? An awful lot. We don't even know when the negotiations can start, let alone what they will be about or when they will end.” 

When the UK population was asked to vote on whether to remain within the EU, the main argument presented by those leading the charge to leave was that the UK would regain control of its borders and prevent free movement of people from all of the 28 member countries. It was argued that this freedom of movement is a financial burden on the UK, that takes away jobs which British citizens could do, as well as being a serious security threat. The arguments presented by those in favor to remain focused on the financial consequences of leaving and the difficulties that could be faced negotiating trade deals with the EU, the UK’s largest trading partner. These arguments did not gain sufficient traction to win the referendum, but now that the dust has settled, the real difficulties are only just beginning to emerge. The EU leaders have been unanimous in pouring cold water on any suggestion that having free trade is possible without accepting free movement of people as well. It has been made clear that one is not an option without the other, contrary to the claims of many of the “leave” protagonists. The lines have been drawn in the sand and the impasse already appears to be very difficult to negotiate.

One could argue that with Trump becoming President, with his vociferous attacks on multi country trade deals, as well as the death of Obama’s proposed TPT trade deal, that the UK would be better positioned outside of the EU to negotiate independent trade deals with the rest of the world, without the pressure to kowtow to EU negotiators. But it will be a tightrope, trying to protect domestic financial interests while the EU will want to set an example to the remaining EU members that leaving has severe negative consequences. The former polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, compared Britain to a club member who complains about the high price of admission and the lowering of standards of the accepting committee for new members, but who would like to stay in the club on individually renegotiated terms. “It will never happen”. 

And so we are left with more questions than answers, including the question of will Brexit ever actually happen? The answer is probably yes, but as of now, no one seems to know what form it will take, how long it will last, or even when it will begin...

- Sophie Hadfield

Native Americans Fight For Their Rights At Standing Rock

As you may have noticed from navigating social media, many users have been checking in at the Standing Rock Reservation. In an attempt to show support for the protesters gathering at this site in North Dakota, more than 1.4 million people used Facebook to support the movement against the building of a new oil pipeline. The issue has gained significant attention, stirring passions and gaining ground across social media.

Located in North Dakota and South Dakota, Standing Rock is an Indian Reservation that is hosting the largest gathering of Native Americans in more than 100 years. In the past month, it has been the setting of ongoing protests against the construction of a new oil pipeline, which will extend for 1,170 miles and will border the Reservation, representing both an environmental and cultural threat to the inhabitants of the area. 

The $3.7 billion pipeline project, if approved, will be realized by a group of companies led by Energy Transfer Partners LP, and has been a topic of great debate especially amongst the community of Native Americans. Started by members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the protest movement has grown to several hundred people. Largely driven by indigenous rights activists from across the country, the movement has mobilized and gained support from several environmentalist groups. Together they have gathered at Standing Rock and camped out in tents on the pipeline construction site, keeping the project from making any progress.

The new pipeline is designed to carry 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day from North Dakota to Illinois, passing close enough to pose a threat to sacred ancestral lands belonging to these communities, who claim its route will cross burial and prayer sites that have great cultural and historic significance to them. Standing up for their tribal rights, members of the Sioux tribe are fighting the aggressive attempts of police officers to put down the movement, through the use of pepper spray and armored vehicles to clear the protest site. In addition, the pipeline project seems absurd at a time in which climate change should be on the agenda of every leader around the world. Its realization encourages the progress of the fossil fuel industry and it embodies exactly the kind of project we should be avoiding.

Many protesters are concerned with its environmental impact, as the pipeline route will cross under the Missouri River which is a major source of drinking water. Should the pipeline leak or burst, the impact could be devastating. And leak pipelines do. Since 1995, more than 2,000 significant accidents involving oil and petroleum pipelines have occurred, adding up to roughly $3 billion in property damage. 

Originally the pipeline was meant to cross the Missouri River just North of Bismarck, the second largest city of North Dakota. The route was relocated to cross the river above the Standing Rock Reservation, as people living in Bismarck expressed disapproval because the project threatened the water supply of a major city. Obviously, there is considerable anger that Standing Rock was chosen to be the victim instead. 

According to latest news updates dated October 31, a total of 411 arrests have taken place at Standing Rock since the beginning of the unrest in August. Law enforcement officers have engaged in aggressive practices to repress the activists, some of which involved the use of taser guns, batons, and sound cannons.  

The standoff reflects ongoing tensions between law enforcement officials and activists standing up for movements similar to this one. The Standing Rock conflict speaks to the larger debate regarding the conduct of police officers in repressing these movements, and reinforces the view that often times peaceful protests are put down by aggressive means. 

The activists standing up for their rights, whether tribal or environmental, in North Dakota have been heroic enough to get U.S. President Barack Obama to halt the project until further notice. Considering the abysmal treatment they have received in the past, Native American people fighting to protect what remains of their sacred land have a right to be heard and supported. Furthermore, considering the climate status of our planet, another major infrastructure carrying crude oil seems to refute the commitment to halt global warming made by many world leaders, including America. 

- Ludovica Grieco

Navigating NATO Within the Aftermath of the U.S. Presidential Election

During the three U.S. presidential debates and broader political campaign discourse, the issue of the United States’ involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was one of the biggest foreign policy differences between President-elect Donald Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton. Despite their conflicting views, there is merit in observing what past precedent and data actually illustrates about NATO’s efficacy as a mutual defense mechanism and how much of a role the U.S. should take.

NATO was founded in 1949 to serve three specific purposes: (1) to deter Soviet expansionism, (2) forbid the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and (3) encourage European political integration. However, in the modern day, NATO’s most significant role is as a guarantee of collective defense, which is expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty: “armed attack against one or more of [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” Guidelines require all allies to contribute 2% of gross domestic product towards defense expenditure, but according to annual data provided by NATO, only five of the 28 NATO countries actually meet this guideline (United States, Greece, United Kingdom, Estonia, and Poland). 

One of Trump’s cornerstone foreign policy positions is that the United States should reassess the dollar amount of its financial contribution to NATO. In a July 20 interview with the New York Times, he said that “If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries….then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, ‘Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.’”

Not surprisingly, Trump’s comments triggered alarms bells throughout Europe, casting unprecedented concern among allies over whether or not, under a Trump presidency, the United States would turn a deaf ear to a military threat against a NATO member and fail to uphold Article 5. This rhetoric is dangerously careless and needlessly inflammatory, especially bearing in mind that the U.S., in response to the September 11 attacks, is the only country in the organization’s 60+ year history to have ever invoked Article 5. There is no doubt that the United States and NATO share the same security objectives. This is especially important considering deteriorating relations between Russia and the United States, who have both recently held military exercises 150 miles apart from each other in Europe's southeastern Balkan region. This is not to mention Russia’s staggering aggression towards Ukraine. The balance of power in Europe relies on a fully capable trans-Atlantic alliance in which the United States plays a principal role. 

However, NATO’s significance warrants that we elevate our discourse beyond partisan lines. There are legitimate concerns in the international defense community, which predate Mr. Trump’s campaign for president, that NATO lacks the financial resources and military means to be a cost-effective mutually beneficial armed coalition. While Mr. Trump’s personal and business relations with Russia are dubious, he does highlight the diplomatic evasiveness seen in European allies that occurs when talking about money and how much money governments should actually allocate for hard-to-quantify objectives such as mutual security. According to Jonathan Eyal, the director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and the other Baltic States “should lead by example” and increase their military spending to meet the 2% guideline. 

Just because NATO is the most successful military alliance in history, this does not mean that such concerns should be ignored or painted over with a broad brush. In terms of the U.S. election, Hillary Clinton could have done a better job in addressing these legitimate concerns to an American electorate that is concerned about domestic issues and wary of military intervention abroad. 

- Samuel Kim

United By A Common Language of Hate

“Would you accept 12 million people moving into your home? You would not. On top of that, they start to remove the wallpaper. Some of them would steal your wallet and brutalize your wife. You would not accept that. Consequently, we are welcoming, but we decide with whom we are welcoming.” While one might think this is one of Donald Trump’s tirades against Mexicans or Muslims, it is in fact the current front-runner for next year’s French Presidential election, the leader of the far right Front National (FN) party, Marine Le Pen. 

Both Trump and Le Pen use binary language to explain complex issues and offer sound bite solutions to appeal to their followers, designating the cause of the economic and cultural malaise of their respective countries to mass immigration, poor trade treaties, exportation of jobs to China and other low cost countries through globalization and loss of “traditional” values which have been corrupted by the influx of new religions and ethnicities.

However, although much of the rhetoric is the same, their backgrounds and aspirations are quite different. Le Pen was schooled in her far right ideologies by her father, the neo-fascist Jean Marie Le Pen. He founded the FN party in 1972 and took it from from the radical fringe to mainstream politics by his populist appeal to the working class and rural populations, seeking answers to their own demise and turning away from the conservative and social mainstream parties who appeared to offer no solutions. Le Pen has been very active in politics for nearly twenty years, promoting herself as an independent outsider and attacking the “establishment” politicians of both parties as corrupt and obligated to special interests who finance their campaigns.

Whether you agree with her points of view, and there are many in France that do, there is no doubt that she is committed in her beliefs and is seeking a popular mandate to enforce the changes she feels are necessary to “make France great again”. She has never been associated with the conservative party and has always been independent from their influence. The movement that she heads, if not created by her and the party she represents, has led the discourse for over forty years and has gradually built support amongst the population. Win or lose in the 2017 Presidential election, you can see Le Pen continuing to work hard for the party she heads.

By contrast, Trump appears simply to have hijacked a movement that had its foundation within the conservative elements of the Republican party, to which until this Presidential cycle, he has never been particularly associated with or acted passionately on its behalf. Indeed his self publicity as a “brilliant” businessman who works the system for his own benefit appears to be his main justification for being fit to be President and there is very little substance to any of his political solutions or policy statements. His motivation appears to be largely about promoting himself and his brand, a clever salesman working his audience by playing on their fears and one doubts that should he fail, that he would continue to invest any time or effort to promote this agenda of doom, unless of course he could somehow profit from it.

There is no evidence that he previously cared about any of the issues that he now professes to care so much about; no investment of time or money in building political support around the positions he now promotes- building walls to keep out Mexicans out of America and extreme vetting of all Muslims seeking emigration to the USA. Until this current presidential campaign, he has shown very little interest in politics or the plight of the individuals he now claims to represent, those working class families who are struggling to maintain lifestyles and income levels or obtain jobs that provide hope for the future.

The social changes and right wing nationalism that Le Pen has vocally supported for the past twenty years, may not be palatable but they are sincere. Le Pen may lose the next French Presidential election but there is little doubt that win or lose, she will continue to advocate for her political views and invest significant time and effort to support other members of her party, including her niece, who are seeking election in various regional contests throughout France. Should Donald Trump loose, it is very doubtful that he will continue to invest time to help those he now says he cares about. It appears that his aspirations lie in potentially leveraging his increased personal profile for private financial gain, possibly even establishing a new TV network to promote his own agenda and increase his personal wealth. Le Pen, may be wrong but she is genuinely for the people she represents, Trump is simply for himself.

- Sophie Hadfield

The Enemy Within

"Donald Trump's campaign statements...have shown that our views are not so unpopular as the Political Correctness crowd have told everyone they are!"

These are the words of head of the American Nazi Party, Rocky J. Suhayda. He and many other leaders of American hate groups have joined together in supporting the Republican Presidential Candidate in his run for office.

With the presidential election now just days away, it is tempting to be relieved that our national nightmare is coming to an end. Trump, after all, has been consistently slipping in the polls. The New York Times forecast currently has Hillary Clinton at around a 90% chance of winning, as of Thursday, October 27th.

With Trump so close to defeat, it’s easy to believe that a Clinton victory will put an end to the madness, and that all of the hateful rhetoric of his campaign can be forgotten.

This view ignores the fact that America was incredibly divided, and in many cases incredibly radical, before Trump ever proposed building a wall. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that there are currently 892 active hate groups in the United States. There is no plausible reason that they would all ever suddenly cease to exist. After all, Trump did not create white nationalism; he simply become a symbol for it.

To make matters worse, during his meteoric rise to the top of the ticket, Trump has emboldened hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Even David Duke, former Imperial Wizard for the Klan, has continually claimed to be a strong supporter of Trump. Trump, to his credit, has tried to distance himself after intense media scrutiny.

The problem with hate groups is that they often support or even perpetrate mass violence against minorities, women, and other vulnerable sects of society.  If (and arguably, when) he loses his grasp on the White House, Trump will have still done enough damage by energizing white supremacists and racists. His words have contributed to a resurgence of hate, according to Heidi Beirich, the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Intelligence Project.” This is because when he speaks out on national television on proposals like banning all Muslims from entering the United States, he makes these radical ideas seem “mainstream,” and thus validates them in the minds of those listening.

In May, for example, the Leader brothers were arrested in Boston for urinating on the face of a Hispanic homeless man and then beating him brutally with a metal pole. Authorities say that one of the brothers explained of his violent act: “Donald Trump was right. All these illegals need to be deported.”

There has also been an incredible rise in homegrown terrorism over the election cycle. Homegrown terrorism, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is any extremist violence perpetrated by American citizens or legal U.S. residents. In the past year alone, there has been a litany of thwarted and successful radical-right terror plots.

As recently as October 14th, a group of men belonging to the “Crusaders,” a militia group with strongly held anti-immigrant beliefs, attempted to bomb a Kansas City residential building that housed 120 Somali immigrants. The men had been stockpiling weapons and explosives for months.

Now, sensing impending defeat, Trump supporters are warning of a “revolution” if Clinton wins, according to an October 27th New York Times article. This comes only days after Trump announced in the third Presidential Debate that he would not accept the results of the election, but only if he loses. His supporters’ threats, combined with his inflammatory comments, hint at more violence and instability to come in the days following November 8th.

With experts now warning that the real terror threat to Americans is from our fellow citizens, it is time to be diligent. If Trump loses, it is not enough to denounce him and move on with our lives. We must make sure to turn our attention away from his attention-seeking brand of misogynistic, Xenophobic, Islamophobic and ableist outbursts.

In addition, Clinton will need to address the Trump issue, while condemning him. Her role in mending the wounds this election cycle has cast on Americans is critical to ensuring that the 2020 election does not follow a similarly brutal path.

- Claudia Franke

The Down Side for Mexican Citizens

The concept of globalization – the creation of an integrated global economy driven by international trade and investment – often brings forth positive proponents, but many fail to address the downside. Free trade supposedly leads to the creation of more jobs, the circulation of higher wages in developing countries, and lower prices for consumers overall. In spite of these alleged benefits, globalization brings significant challenges, with the greatest concern being that it has made the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

America’s neighboring country, Mexico, often receives harsh criticism in the US, particularly from presidential candidate Donald Trump who claims Mexicans are “taking our jobs”. Trump believes the shift of employment opportunities to Mexico deprives American citizens of numerous jobs; he often cites Carrier, an air conditioning company, for displacing 1,400 jobs and castigates Ford for outsourcing current manufacturing jobs to Mexico as well. Although job displacement in the US is not to be disregarded, Mexico faces similar, if not worse, consequences for their citizens. The negative cause and effect of globalization on Mexico must be considered, including economic, cultural, and environmental effects. The argument that globalization makes every country better off needs to be challenged.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1994, intended to eliminate tariffs between Mexico, the United States, and Canada. However, its lingering effects have become an instrument of displacement between regions within Mexico. While NAFTA has helped increase Mexico’s GDP by 18.6% since its foundation, it has also created a huge distinction between Northern and Southern Mexico. Northern Mexican states have had “high exposure” to foreign investors because their export-oriented industries are attractive, and because farmers are often able to sell their land because of their proximity to the United States. “Low exposure” states, primarily in southern Mexico, have generally focused on agricultural production. These less industrialized states have had a decrease in annual labor earnings of around 10%. Deals like NAFTA have drastically affected such farmers, who cannot afford to compete with significantly lower import prices.

Therefore, though foreign direct investment may have increased, domestic investment has decreased with local companies going bankrupt or struggling to be self-sufficient. From this comes large numbers of unemployed workers who, finding themselves in poverty, frequently ends up as illegal immigrants in the United States. Ironically, the same illegal immigrants sometimes find themselves working for the corporations who put them out of business in the first place. As Donald Trump argues for deportation of illegal immigrants, it is upsetting to realize that many of these immigrants are simply fighting for a better life after suffering from from a free trade agreement that America created. The poverty rate in Mexico has faced many fluctuations in the last two decades, but the percentage has decreased only marginally from 52.3% in 1994 to 46.2% in 2014. The effects of poverty are seen within all issues in Mexican society today: violent crime, drug wars, and illegal immigration. Trump asserts that free trade agreements have damaging effects, but his explanation neglects the outcomes for Mexico and focuses only on the side effects for America.

The levels of education differ amongst social classes in Mexico. This disparity in education matches the income disparity between Northern and Southern Mexican states. In order to make a living in Mexico, many southern-state families have resorted to becoming migrant farmers. This population remains invisible in the eyes of many citizens because they are constantly migrating to different cities with the change of a season. Many families cannot afford to send their children to school, and this cycle of poverty continues to exist because children are sent to work instead of schools to provide for their families.

One unique solution could be America allowing the children of Mexican migrant workers to receive an American education since some of these children are born in American cities.  Everyday workers cross the border for a chance to increase their literacy and eventually have better opportunities for their future. Many of their children are living in poverty, and these are often cited as children who have no literacy or do not have proper health care treatment. They cross the border from Third World to First World Monday to Friday, struggling to understand the violence and drugs that surround their world at home with the freedom and education that center their lives at school. What is even more unfortunate is, for some students, they eventually have to move as the season changes - such is the nature of a migrant family. Attempts to increase benefits and opportunities for Mexican citizens are often difficult to enact, especially when they have already lost so much.  

Furthermore, the development of industries in Mexico has created an environment that is particularly harmful to the health of Mexican citizens. The pollution rates have skyrocketed in Mexico City, and the capital recently banned two out of every five private vehicles on the road. Although this shows that emergency measures have already been implemented to enhance air quality, the World Health Organization advises at least double the amount provisions. Many of these vehicles average around fourteen-years-old; the cars emit high levels of black carbon, and their contribution towards ozone buildup is around 90% of the pollutants in the air. At schools, outdoor recreation is prohibited, and individuals who suffer from lung or heart disease are asked to remain indoors during the afternoons when ozone levels are at their most toxic. Mexico is looking to improve the quality of air for its inhabitants, but at its current rate of industrialization, this measure is highly difficult to obtain. If the Mexican government is able to replace levels of black carbon with ultra-low levels of sulfur, a method the United States has advised, they can reduce an average of two-thousands premature deaths in Mexico City annually.

Globalization, like many process of international integration, has profoundly reshaped developing economies; however, its detrimental effects are not to be disregarded. Although many can benefit from free trade and lower tariffs, the poor social classes are generally reduced to even greater deficiency. Job displacement, environmental costs, and insufficient education are just a few of the many ramifications that continue the cycle of poverty for Mexican citizens. One does not need to look far to see that globalization is not always favorable, and within each developing country there are important issues that need to be addressed.

- Omil Xia

Examining Trust Inside Duterte’s Drug War

Since taking office, President Rodrigo Duterte has been condemned by foreign bodies and human rights organizations on his unrestrained use of profanities, and his disregard for violation of international human rights clauses in his war against drugs. Yet, these criticisms seem to have little effect on dampening nationalistic support for Duterte. In a recent survey conducted by Pulse Asia Research, President Rodrigo Duterte reached a historic trust rating of 91% in July. Although it has fallen to 86% in September, such high approval ratings is still an impressive feat, considering that ratings were consistent across socioeconomic classes and geographic areas. The consensus of the masses in Philippines is intriguing, for their favorability is a significant deviation from the disapprovals of international organizations such as the United Nations, and Philippines’ close ally, United States of America. Conceivably, the high trust ratings are an indication that Rodrigo Duterte could be exactly what Philippines needs in reducing organized crime and corruption, thus establishing fertile grounds for inclusive economic growth.

Refreshing Authenticity and Proven Track Record

Duterte’s impressive track record during his term serving as a mayor at Davao, together with his candor, are some of the factors that lead to Filipinos’ trust in him. Not only did he set up the first 911 emergency response center in the Philippines, next to a Public Safety and Security command center that monitors suspicious activities on camera, Duterte also established a center for victims of domestic violence, and development and welfare codes for women and children. Apart from setting up new facilities, he also imposed new anti-littering ordinance, a ban on smoking in public and a curfew for minors. These rules and regulations helped to lower crime rates by 75%, and raised methamphetamine costs to almost twice as much in Davao City because of risks faced by drug sellers. In crime-weary Philippines, Duterte’s iron-clad ruling on crime and drugs, coupled with his emphasis on improving safety measures for women and children, garnered much support from Filipinos, in hope that Davao City’s success would be duplicated nationwide. Backed by his dedication to the welfare of his city, Duterte’s curses, and his offensive remarks against the UN, EU, and US are thus viewed as personable, authentic, and trustworthy, for they portray a fatherly figure protecting the self-interests of Philippines. 

Declaring Drug War on Curbing Organized Crime and Corruption

“Hitler massacred three million Jews. Now, there are three million drug addicts. I’d be happy to slaughter them.” Unsurprisingly, Duterte’s comparison of the killing of drug addicts and dealers to the Nazi regime against Jews drew international outrage. Later, he apologized for his remarks. If these remarks are not disconcerting, reports on extrajudicial killings of drug dealers and addicts most certainly are. According to Time magazine, more than 3000 killings have taken place.oughly 1,506 people were killed in police operations while the rest are still under investigation, suspected to be a result of killings by vigilantes inspired by Duterte. However, Kris Ablan, assistant secretary at the Presidential Communications Office, warned against categorizing the killings as extrajudicial, for most of the police killings are claimed to be as a result of self-defense and gang violence. 

Although claims of extrajudicial killings are disturbing, Ablan is right in that the quick jump to conclusion may discount the difficulty in implementing measures needed to clamp down on the entrenched drug trade that only exists with polarity of wealth and authority. A harsh rule with outward display of real consequences may be what is necessary to become a successful deterrent to the higher authorities who were used to a system that tolerated bribes, and to the impoverished who were lured to drug dealing due to attractive astronomical profits. In August, Duterte added at least 1,000 public officials to a list of individuals suspected of links to the drug trade, including judges, police, mayors and governors. Only by establishing the rule that no one is above the law, will the judicial system work. 

Plight of the Commoners

Regrettably, what worked in Davao City may not produce the same sustainable results when replicated on a large-scale level. Rehabilitation efforts are significantly underfunded, and considering many of these men turned to drug trade in desperate times, their loss of jobs and captivity in prison could have disproportionate and devastating effects on their families, especially if they are sole breadwinners. Conditions for prisoners are also horrendous, for the prisons are grossly overcrowded, with as manly as 3,800 inmates housed in a capacity meant for 60. In a sense, the war on drugs is as much as a war on the poor. 

Balancing Act

Like the rest of the world, many Filipinos are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. Many are willing to turn a blind eye, for they see the killings as a necessary evil in creating a safe community. The notion of fear is removed, as the public is reassured by Duterte’s promise of safety for law-abiding citizens. Understandably, rights for drug dealers and addicts, which international human rights organizations advocate for, thus comes as a privilege that citizens are willing to forgo. Therefore, Duterte’s war against drugs has far-fetching implications that go beyond the act of curbing drug trade itself. It represents the potential to reform judicial system, introduce political stability, attract foreign investment, and propel Philippines into economic prosperity that many have long yearned for. Of course, Duterte also needs to ensure education, healthcare and employment conditions are not neglected with the relocation of funds to lower crime rates. These are not easy issues to tackle, but the Filipinos have trust, and more importantly, hope, for a better future under Duterte’s administration.  

- Lanxin Jiang

Political Debate Intensifies in Italy, As Constitutional Referendum Looms

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi called for a national referendum on his proposed constitutional reform, scheduled for December 4th of this year. Approaching at a time in which referendums held around the world have produced unpredictable results, and have caused ardent political turmoil (such as with Brexit in the UK and the FARC vote in Colombia), Italy's upcoming vote gives rise to a tense political debate in the scrabble between the supporters of the reforms proposed by the current government and those who oppose them.

The referendum put forward by Renzi and his PD (Partito Democratico) center-left party, proposes to approve the constitutional reform that changes, to a certain extent, the second part of the Italian constitution regarding the organization of the Parliament.

With the overall goal of making the legislative process more rapid and efficient, the reform focuses on the abolition of the current perfect bicameralism occurring in Italy’s Parliament, in which the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies have equal functions and must approve the same text of every bill before it is passed.

In the hopes of ceasing this so-called "navette" process in which bills are passed from one chamber to the other, which significantly slows down the legislative procedure, the reform wants to disempower the Senate by reducing its power and size. By reducing the number of senators from 315 to 100 regional councilors and maintaining that mayors receive no compensation, Renzi argues the Senate will assume a somewhat representative 'regional' role. This would give a voice to local territories, leaving most legislative power to the Chamber of Deputies, whilst significantly reducing costs.

This has been the most debated aspect of the reform, according to Renzi and a number of Italian MPs who have been discussing the need for these changes for the past 30 years, because it will allow for a more rapid and less costly organization of the Parliament. The Prime Minister also argues that the reform will provide Italy with a much-needed political stability, considering there have been 63 governments since the end of WWII.

Additionally, the reform proposes to transfer some legislative power back to the Central Government after it was assigned to the regional political bodies in a constitutional reform that took place in 2000.

The main legislative powers to be transferred back to the Central government fall into the fields of major infrastructural projects, energy plants and tourism, allowing the government to handle and hold decisions on these issues.

From the beginning, Mr. Renzi attributed extraordinary political importance to the outcome of the referendum, to such an extent that he pledged to resign and withdraw from politics if the outcome is negative and the Italian people reject the reform.

This was probably a mistake, given that it provided Renzi's enemies a chance to coalesce against approval of the reform, campaigning for the “No” vote on the referendum as an opportunity to oust him from power. Renzi soon took back what he said and is currently making an effort to depersonalize the referendum, focusing on its importance for the political stability of the country.

As often occurs in Italy, the political struggle prevails on the singular issues and policies and the content of the reform risks being overshadowed by Mr Renzi's opponents who see it as an occasion to discharge his government.

Despite the opposition to the referendum, dominated by constitutionalists who are determined to maintain the status quo and shun any changes to the constitution, Mr. Renzi's reform seems to be an adequate formula to shake up an undoubtedly stagnant political and parliamentary situation.

At his final state dinner on October 18th, President Obama complimented premier Renzi on his political career and endorsed the yes vote to the referendum. Obama stated that Renzi has contributed positively with his leadership to the diplomacy of the EU, and that a positive outcome to the constitutional referendum would be good for Italy. Those frustrated by decades of political stagnation would surely agree with President Obama, and should vote “yes” to the referendum, understanding its potential to reform the system.

- Ludovica Grieco

Assessing Optimal Aid To Haiti After Hurricane Matthew

The eye of Hurricane Matthew made landfall on the Carolinas on October 7th and the storm’s effects in North Carolina are still being felt a week later. The wicked storm reportedly killed 23 people and caused billions of dollars in damage.

In Haiti, where the hurricane made landfall days earlier, the cleanup and rehabilitation processes are guaranteed to be much more difficult. In Haiti, where official death counts have reached upwards of 100,000 (with many suggesting it may be significantly higher), officials have resorted to burying people in mass graves as the death count has climbed exponentially.

The hurricane’s damage is especially devastating to the tiny island nation of Haiti because it has barely recovered from the 2010 earthquake that hit its capital, Port-au-Prince. The 5.7 magnitude earthquake killed 400,000 Haitians, and in its aftermath, left three million people without food, shelter, water and electricity. As of now, after the hurricane, 770,000 people are still living in emergency shelters.

Progress to restore Haiti’s infrastructure and civil services has been slow moving, however. A 2012 report found that Haiti’s infrastructure, especially public health buildings, had barely recovered. It is estimated that a quarter of all hospitals were destroyed thanks to the natural disaster.

The lack of hospitals and clean water accelerated the spread of an outbreak of cholera.  Cholera, a disease spread by fecal-oral contact, was previously nearly eradicated in Haiti, but as of 2016, an estimated 770,000 people have died. New cases are still reported every month.

While relief efforts are finally picking up speed because of increased public attention to the crisis, there is still much to be done. The issue for many Americans is now where to donate to speed these efforts.

President Obama announced on October 7th in an official statement from the White House, that Americans should donate to the Red Cross to aid the recovery process. Unfortunately, he was wrong, at least according to Haitians’ own requests.

Accordingly, the Red Cross has had issues with aid distribution in Haiti. A 2015 ProPublica Investigation found that the organization had received 500 million dollars for Haitian relief, and had built only six new homes since the earthquake. It was later found that the organization spent 25% of donations on “Internal Affairs,” meaning expenses such as salaries and even end-of-year bonuses. This has warranted it a two star financial rating on Charity Navigator.

The same report scathingly cites issues with the organization such as false claims of success, an over reliance on foreigners who couldn’t speak local languages like French or Creole, and internal fighting.

Many Haitian relief workers are frustrated with the Red Cross and have stated publicly that they don’t want donations from the Red Cross, according to an article published on October 13th by the Washington Post.

The solution, according to Haitians, is to donate to smaller Haiti-based charities and local organizations. This is because Haitian organizations are more likely to understand logistics and how to reach remote communities, according to Samuel Darguin, the executive director of the Haitian American Caucus.

The St. Boniface Haiti Foundation provides assistance for people in isolated parts of the country. It runs several local clinics and hospitals across Haiti, and 2016 marks the tenth consecutive year that Charity Navigator has awarded St. Boniface a four star rating for sound fiscal management.

Food for the Poor provides food, water, and emergency supply donations shipped from the US directly to Haitian emergency workers. Donors can provide any amount they wish.

The Gaskov Clerge Foundation has been designated as an official facilitator for relief efforts in Haiti, and focuses on providing medical examinations, as well as coordinating with the local Ministry of Health Officials in Haiti.

In general, before donating, it is imperative to check Charity Navigator. The site allows donors to see where exactly their money will go within the organization. Charity Navigator has also published a list of the ten best practices for donors.

- Claudia Franke

Photo: Flickr

“Dieselgate” and What It Means For Diesel’s Image

With 25% better fuel economy and lower carbon emissions than their gasoline-powered equivalents, diesel engines once promised a cleaner future for the automobile industry. Lately, however, the reality has become messy.

Reducing levels of soot, dust and other particulate matter released by diesel-powered vehicles had long been the foremost challenge facing the diesel industry. Exposure to these substances was linked to high incidence of respiratory illnesses, such as asthma and bronchitis. Nonetheless, the issue was largely resolved during the 1980’s with the introduction of particulate matter traps, capable of filtering-out 95% of these harmful substances. In recent years, however, diesel has encountered a new challenge: reducing its NOx or, nitrogen oxide, emissions.  

Research has found that NOx emissions are more harmful to respiratory health than CO2, and according to The Economist, are the cause of a large number of premature deaths—perhaps 58,000 a year in America alone.  Given that diesel engines release NOx at twenty times the rate of gasoline-powered engines, car manufacturers have found themselves compelled to search for a solution.  

Diesel-powered trucks and large passenger automobiles have successfully employed “selective catalytic reduction”, or SCR, to cut NOx emissions. SCR works by reducing NOx to harmless nitrogen and water through a chemical process that takes place inside a catalytic converter installed within the vehicle. However, the bulkiness of the converter and the rest of the SCR apparatus has prevented the technology from being used as effectively on lightweight, family-sized diesel cars. This has forced car manufacturers, like Volkswagen, to search for alternatives.

After failing to design a system capable limiting NOx emissions while also maintaining its guaranteed high level of fuel economy, Volkswagen resorted to installing what are called “defeat devices” inside a number of its automobile models. Banned by environmental regulatory agencies worldwide, “defeat devices” allow a vehicle to “sense” when it is undergoing an inspection and distort emissions readings in order to meet the required standard.

Last September, after an investigation conducted by the EPA revealed that Volkswagen was “cheating” on its emissions tests, the company came forward and admitted to installing the devices inside 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide. Since coming forward, the auto-making titan has endured tumbling stock prices and endless lawsuits. More turbulence in sales and additional lawsuits are expected to follow.  

General mistrust in diesel as a result of the controversy, now referred to as, “Dieselgate”, is beginning to manifest itself worldwide. In January of this year, French government authorities raided the offices of diesel-car manufacturer, Renault, after discovering that like Volkswagen, a subset of its vehicle models were exceeding limits on emissions. The company has since recalled more than 15,000 of its cars and according to The Financial Times, has experienced a sharp decline in shares as a result of investor fears. Renault is denying that it “cheated” and has attributed the discrepancy in emissions readings to a “calibration error”. Nevertheless, the incident has undoubtedly helped to further tarnish diesel’s image.

Despite the trouble Dieselgate has fomented, there may perhaps be a silver lining after all. In particular, the discovery of the Volkswagen’s wrongdoing, in and of itself, shows that regulatory agencies and governments are beginning to enforce their emissions standards more rigidly. What Volkswagen and Renault have experienced will perhaps serve as a warning to all other automobile manufacturers that noncompliance with these standards will be met with severe consequences.  

- Konstantine Tettonis

Photo: The Independent

Teaching An Old Bill New Tricks

As a result of a combination of legislative gridlock and election-year rhetoric about rising crime rates, no major changes to the criminal justice system have made their way out of Congress. Yet, on September 22, the House of Representatives quietly—and overwhelmingly—passed an impactful justice system reform measure with a vote of 382 – 29.

The bipartisan Supporting Youth Opportunity and Preventing Delinquency Act (H.R. 5963) was introduced by Representative Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA) on September 8. The legislation strives to retool the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which has been expired since 2007. After receiving unanimous approval by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on September 14, the bill now awaits a floor vote.

When the JJDPA was first passed in 1974, it withheld federal funding from states that hold minors in adult prisons. Unlike previous incarnations of the law, however, the newly approved Supporting Youth Opportunity and Preventing Delinquency Act would extend that same protection to juveniles who have been charged with adults crimes but are still awaiting trial.

This updated legislation would also prevent states from locking up minors for status offenses, crimes that are only considered crimes because of the age of the offender, such as truancy or breaking curfew. In addition, the law would extend to cases in which minors are charged with only a status offense but jailed for violating a court order connected to the case. Previously, those cases were considered an exception, known as the “Valid Court Order (VCO).”

The Senate version of the bill has made it out of committee and has received virtually unanimous support. Despite its initial success, it still faces an obstacle in Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), who singlehandedly blocked the measure from being put to a quick voice vote. Cotton objected to phasing out the provision in the Act that allows status offenders to be locked up under certain circumstances. Cotton’s home state, Arkansas, also incarcerates minors for status offenses at a disproportionately high rate.

Still, the bill’s passage through at least one chamber comes at an unexpected time: weeks before the highly-anticipated general election. From the intense Republican primary race to Donald Trump’s doomsday speech at the Republican National Convention in July, the specter of rising crime across the country has become a prominent issue on the campaign trail. Accordingly, the chances of passing substantive criminal justice reform at the federal level have faltered.

However, despite the status of many earlier attempts to reform the adult prison system, the Supporting Youth Opportunity and Preventing Delinquency Act currently enjoys broad bipartisan support.

Since its conception in 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act has provided federal grants to states that adhered to a number of core principles, such as not detaining juveniles in adult facilities; not detaining juveniles for status offenses; and not detaining juveniles in ways that would differ on the basis of race. Over time, however, loopholes were added to the legislation. The reauthorized bill aims to close these loopholes.

If the updated bill passes, states that do not comply with the new law could choose to forgo a portion of their federal funding. The bill would also mandate states to collect data on racial disparities at all stages of the juvenile system, then present a strategy for addressing those shortcomings. Another important component of the bill requires states to ensure that academic credits and transcripts are transferred between schools and juvenile detention facilities in a timely manner. Furthermore, children will receive full credit toward graduation for any schoolwork completed while incarcerated.

As reforms go, the changes being proposed are far from radical. “This is the floor, the minimum of how we should treat children,” said Marcy Mistrett, the CEO of the Campaign for Youth Justice, which has been lobbying Congress to pass the bill since 2007.

This updated legislation takes steps to ensure a smoother transition out of juvenile-justice programs and into education programs. By providing funding for delinquency prevention and gang-intervention programs, while also requiring states to report data on juvenile recidivism rates, states might be in a better position to address some longstanding issues in their justice system and their communities.

- Patrick Lin

The Intersection of Politics and Hip Hop in Chicago

In 2013, Vice News’s music branch Noisey shot and directed a YouTube web series about the southside of Chicago known as Welcome to Chiraq, which attempted to elucidate the hardships and gang violence that are currently affecting the area’s several neighborhoods. Noisey focused on the perspectives and storylines of different up and coming rappers with respect to how the gang violence has influenced their lives and the lives of those around them. Interestingly, many Chicago residents disapproved of Noisey’s attempt to paint a portrait of Chicago’s south side as “hopeless” and a “war zone” because although it is certainly dangerous, the documentary undermined the multitude of efforts to bring the different communities together against the gang violence.

As an avid listener of the newly coined “drill music” subgenre of hip hop that comes out of Chicago, my reaction to the documentary was filled with mixed emotions. I, on one hand, found the insight into the rappers’ daily lives intriguing, but on the other hand, understood the criticisms directed at Noisey. The series places an almost-condescending emphasis on the violence, gang-affiliation, and drugs that fill the lyrics of the drill music of Chicago’s most popular hip hop artists. This exploitation was aimed at sensationalizing the hard, impoverished conditions highlighted in these said lyrics, which I would imagine increased the series’s viewership among those not involved with Chicago in any way.

Perhaps the series should have focused on the way the people of the southside of Chicago are taking action to unite in the face of adversity and violence. Perhaps the series should have focused on how Chicago’s politics play an integral role in segregating the south side from the rest of the more affluent, less crime-ridden areas of the city. Perhaps. G Herbo, one of drill music’s young rising stars, passionately raps “In the streets, ditchin' school, murder, drugs around me/Rappin' it just found me, thank God it wasn't in county/Buncha shootouts, lucky that them bullets went around me”. Many of the rappers in Chicago create music that, whether or not apparent at first listen, is introspective and thoughtful about the situation they live in. It appears that drill rappers’, such as Herb (G Herbo), insight into personal experience appears to be overshadowed by the lyrics about violence, drugs, etc. These bars represent the conflict that exists in the minds of many of the youth in these underprivileged areas: the duality of being entrenched in the social dynamic and making it out of said dynamic onto a better life.

Noisey took all of the criticisms into account, changed the lens of its approach, and just recently released a documentary on its new Viceland channel known simply as Chicago. This new documentary shed light on how the citizens of the south side of Chicago are actually working to build positive relationships within the community against violence (i.e "Stop the Violence Parade"). “Stop the Violence” is a local event that specifically works to gather the communities of the southside of Chicago together and allows them to parade through the streets in order to raise awareness about gang violence. Parades and violence-awareness initiatives are considered the main combat mechanisms against gang violence because of the indifference towards the hardships perpetrated by the local Chicago governmental policies. At the mantle of this indifference is Chicago’s mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Much of the scrutiny aimed at the Emanuel administration is related to his false consciousness about police brutality and the specific, hollow rhetoric he employs in attempt to ameliorate the situation. The biggest contradiction in Emanuel’s actions and his language comes in the form of his handling of the police shooting of Laquan McDonald, that occurred on October 20, 2014 at roughly 10:00 P.M.

It is believed by many, even the Chicago Tribune--the city’s most prolific newspaper--that Mayor Emanuel attempted to hide the fact that he knew about the shooting long before he ran for reelection, several months after the shooting took place. Given the time period between Emanuel being “fully briefed” by his cabinet on the shooting of McDonald, and when the shooting actually took place, there appears to be foul play politics at hand. It appears all too convenient that he just happened to “understand the gravity of the police brutality situation in Chicago” as his campaigning was coming to an end for reelection. Several months later, a dashcam video of the shooting was released to the public displaying the altercation between the McDonald and the police officer. The video portrayed a scenario that was drastically different from the police report that was filed immediately after the shooting (perhaps the working of [another] police cover up).

In response to Emanuel’s lack of a tangible action against police brutality, the people of Chicago erupted into a protest that vacated the majority of the city’s streets. This is the most glaring instance of Emanuel’s governmental inconsistencies, and unfortunately, the people of the south side of the city are the most affected. Hip hop music offers an escape, an opportunity to bypass the barriers of social mobility, but what’s alarming is the manner in which hip hop music is being perceived. The music reflects the day-to-day lives of a group of people who face systemic indifference and destitution at the hands of politics that leave their interests out of the equation.

- James Sabia

Voting: The Stepchild of American Rights

For something as fundamentally crucial to democracy as the right to vote, the current state of suffrage receives considerably less attention. While the convoluted politics and horse-race journalism that currently muddle American presidential elections are at times hard to see through, voting is the foundation upon which this system of governance is made prosperous and worthwhile. But compared to countries that have compulsory voter laws or just enjoy regularly high voter turnout (e.g. Belgium, Turkey, Sweden, etc.), the United States appears to be only a leader in political apathy. However, with the rise of a new cohort of eligible voters, Millennials are on the forefront of a larger movement questioning the integrity of voting rights and disenfranchisement in primary procedures.

Although amendments to the Constitution have been ratified to address voting requirements (e.g. the 14th, 15th, 17th, and 19th Amendments), specifics have always been ambiguous and under the discretion of state governments; therefore, state-issued voter laws are naturally more stringent than federal requirements. While protecting the integrity of the ballot box against potential fraud or corruption is critical to ensuring that the electorate’s will is accurately represented, overprotectiveness has proven to distort election results as well– in nearly all cases to an extent far greater than potential fraud.

Last month’s primary in Arizona is one of such disastrous cases. In order to save money on election expenditures, Maricopa County reduced its polling locations by seventy percent, equating to one polling site for every 21,000 voters. The result was obscene wait times, errors in voter registration, and a particularly noticeable burden on black, Hispanic, and Native American communities. In downtown Phoenix, hundreds stood in line for over five hours after polling places closed, only to have media project Clinton and Trump as the primary winners.  Despite assertions by Maricopa County officials that no intentional efforts were made to keep people from voting and that the circumstances were “just a huge miscalculation,” the Democratic National Committee, along with the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are suing the state of Arizona for disenfranchising specific demographics of Arizona’s electorate.

The over-preventative legislation implemented to combat the practically non-existent issue of in-person voter fraud has only hurt the integrity of the ballot it claims to protect. One would expect that if voting requirements are made more stringent, the government in all its ability will help the community meet those same requirements. This could take the form of improving access to the state’s definition of an acceptable form of identification, overhauling a bureaucratic voter registration system and database, or providing increased education and funding for specific communities that suffer from lower election turnout. Instead, legislation passed by North Carolinian Republican majorities in 2013 broadly cuts back early voting, restricts private groups from conducting voter-registration drives, and eliminates election-day voter registration, making it one of the strictest voter ID rules in the country. When roughly five percent of registered voters still do not have an acceptable form of government-issued ID to cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential primary, it becomes obvious that necessary post-implementary steps are not being taken. The responsibility of governing does not stop when legislation is passed; it continues past implementation and until the impact of such legislation is an objective improvement for the community in which it affects.

This undue burden on the specific parts of the community is apparent in Wisconsin, where new voter ID laws were estimated to affect at least 300,000 people before its hotly contested primary in April. Voters, such as the elderly who have expired driver's licenses, younger voters who may or may not attend university, and the poor, are feeling increasingly overlooked by the quasi-democratic electoral procedures of their respective parties -- a political move Sanders calls “not only shameful” but, “un-American in the deepest sense of the word.”

While disagreement over the specifics of voting eligibility seems split between left and right, the frustration with current electoral procedures transcends party division or political ideology. With the rise of Donald Trump and his popularity among disgruntled Republican and conservative voters, the ballot’s effectiveness as an intermediary between ordinary people and government is under newfound scrutiny – this time from the right. After losing all of Colorado’s delegates at the GOP assembly in Colorado Springs to Ted Cruz, Trump levied heavy criticism of the state’s caucus-style primary, calling it "a rigged, disgusting, dirty system” and that “great people being disenfranchised by politicians”. Using rhetoric reminiscent of Sanders’ anti-establishment platform, he also asserted during a campaign rally in Syracuse, New York that the Republican nomination process “is worse than [the Democrats]” because Americans “are not even voting, the bosses are picking the delegates”.

While knowing and campaigning within the given parameters of a pre-existing primary system is an unavoidable and necessary measure of running in a presidential race, the feeling that the “game is rigged” is important to address– especially considering the lack of national discourse on the state of voting rights. The federal government has a moral obligation ensure that voting remains as accessible and efficient as possible without compromising the integrity of the ballot. By continuing to relegate the right to vote as a kind of stepchild in the family of American rights, the result is a discouraged electorate skeptical of a hyper-partisan system too out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans.

- Samuel Kim