The Democratic Party: Pragmatism and the Dangers of Purity

In the weeks leading up to April 9th, 2017, and the eventual confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, I worked as an intern in the office of Senator Jon Tester. During the prolonged and grueling confirmation battles being waged over President Trump’s executive and judicial nominees, minority leader Chuck Schumer estimated that as many as 1.5 million calls a day were pouring into Senate offices of both parties. While the bulk of communications we received were the usual expressions of either encouragement from sympathetic Democrats or threats of eviction from office by newly emboldened Republicans, there developed a trend of increasingly frequent calls from a third faction – that of the Angry Progressive.

“Mr. Tester. I live in Billings, Montana and I am a lifelong Democrat. I voted for you twice, Mr. Tester, but if you vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch as Supreme Court Justice I swear I will not rest until you are defeated in the next primary.”

Jon Tester, as a Democrat in a state Trump won by a huge margin, must often tread a very fine political line. Like his Democratic colleagues from traditionally conservative states in the South and Midwest, Tester built his career by reaching across the aisle - his liberal principles tempered by a mixture of conservative values particular to his constituency. Mr. Tester’s office had become accustomed to Republicans periodically angry about their Senator caucusing with Washington Democrats, but the general understanding was that Montana Liberals were just happy to have a representative in office.

Perhaps not so anymore.

Mr. Tester did not in the end vote to confirm Justice Gorsuch. However, he did make decisions less popular with the left, such as voting to ease an Obama-administration regulation barring Social Security recipients who meet certain disability criteria from purchasing firearms. Shortly thereafter, office lines were flooded by complaints – the majority of them from out-of-state non-constituents. The threat this kind of outside pressure poses, should it continue to grow unchecked, cannot be exaggerated.

The State of Our Union

There is a fundamental disconnect between Democrats and Republicans in this country. In a poll that it has been conducting since 1994, the Pew Research Center found that there is currently a 36-point gap between Republicans and Democrats across 10 different political values. This number is far larger than any other societal cleavage (the second largest is ‘race’ at 14%). More than anything, this is due to a increasingly prominent lack of understanding – and therefore sensitivity - the two groups have for each other.

Take, for example, a study conducted by Wesleyan University analyzing the comparative substance of campaign ads run during the 2016 election. The study found that of Secretary Clinton’s ads, a little under 65% were personal in nature, 25% based on policy, and a little over 10% were both. In comparison, Donald Trump ran about 70% of his ads centered around policy. These numbers may come as a surprise to many Democrats, for whom Ms. Clinton is considered the preeminent policy wonk. The source of this confusion is also the source of the current problems facing the Democratic party. Among coastal liberals, it is a common assumption that President Trump’s political, and general, illiteracy does not translate to effective or informative messaging. Therefore, his election by large, predominantly white swathes of the country must be due to latent biases that finally found an outlet in the man prominent writer and activist Ta-Nehisi Coates dubs, The First White President. And yet, when Gallup polled what people had “read, seen, or heard about Hillary Clinton” during the campaign, the most common responses were email, lie, scandal, and various other closely associated words like FBI and investigation. Before attributing this in its entirety to a potent Republican attack strategy, understand that Donald Trump, a character not short on controversy, was associated with words like Second Amendment, Mexico, ISIS, and even the word policy. While there is certainly merit to the argument of white cultural backlash, to consider such an interpretation as adequate is as convenient as it is irresponsible. Before Democrats can begin to tackle the problem and establish a game plan for the future, they must codify one central assumption on which to build a foundation: ‘deplorable’ America has real policy preferences and they are very distinct from those of urban liberal bastions.

Rural America

It is no secret that American liberals tend to concentrate in urban areas and conservatives in rural ones. The consequent cultural divide is often both underappreciated and misunderstood. Underappreciated in that for many who have not experienced it, it is hard to comprehend fully how much everything from labor markets to demographics differs between urban and rural communities. Misunderstood in that these differences permeate almost every facet of life and to a great extent dictate policy priorities. Take the concept of ‘economic anxiety.’ The notion of economic anxiety is often derided by certain elements of the left as being dog-whistle rhetoric enabling bigotry in all its many forms. However, the numbers tell a different story. The Hamilton Project, launched as an economic policy initiative by the Brookings Institute, published a study charting disparities in economic recovery from the Great Recession. While total employment reached its pre-recession levels in April of 2014, that recovery has been far from evenly distributed. The two major discrepancies between those who have recovered and those who have not? Geography and educational attainment. Overwhelmingly, the largest employment-to-population ratio differences between 2007 and 2017 were concentrated in Western and Southern states, with states like South Dakota and Alabama recording differences as high as -4.2% and -3.3% respectively. For those with a Bachelor’s or Graduate degree, employment-to-population ratios reached pre-Recession levels shortly before 2016 and have since surpassed those levels. On the other hand, for those with either ‘some college or associate’s degree’ or ‘high school or less,’ the ratio is still hovering between -2% and -3%. Unsurprisingly, 22 of the 25 states in the lower 50th percentile of ‘Most Educated States’ voted for Donald Trump in 2016  (New Mexico, California, and Nevada were the exceptions).5

Why do these numbers matter? Most importantly because they demonstrate the value in paying close attention to the way voters perceive candidates. While Donald Trump may have been short on specifics as to how he would enact his policy vision, loudly railing against the plight of the Forgotten Blue-Collar Man (a concept conspicuously absent from any 2016 platform on the left) was enough to turn an enormous constituency on to him. Thankfully, the problems facing middle-America also highlight encouraging avenues of electoral opportunity for the Democratic party.

A Grave of One’s Own Digging

More important than what the Democratic party and its sponsored candidates should do in the future, is what they should not do: ignore the cultural realities of differing constituencies. It is up to the Democratic party to lead the country in a positive and productive direction, but liberal purity politics has the potential to do permanent damage to the single most important objective of the party – to strengthen its caucus and broaden its appeal. The argument here is not for national candidates to adopt empty-vessel platforms and follow opinion polls. Rather, it is that anointed Democratic candidates for statewide office must better represent the constituencies for whom they are competing.

The worry is not necessarily how best to win over divided liberals in purple/red states (the key voting demographics in these areas tend to be swing voters and persuadable Republicans), but that influential institutions within the party - the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – which play a critical role in recruiting and grooming potential candidates are not co-opted by the “Bernie-wing” of the party, or as they have now become: the liberal base. Positions in party leadership are generally occupied by members with leverageable networks among the liberal donor elite concentrated in coastal cities. While practical for fundraising purposes, it is imperative that these institutions strike a careful balance between appeasing their sources of income and doing their job: winning elections. As proof of the potential Democratic politicians have to win in traditionally conservative areas, two states in particular are in prime position to serve as live-action case studies.

It’s Been Done

In 2016, Donald Trump won 56.5% of the vote in Montana while Hillary Clinton came in a distant second with 35.97%. Clinton only won in 6 out of more than 60 counties, and then only by very thin margins. And yet, Montana has both a Democratic Senator, Jon Tester, and a Democratic Governor, Steve Bullock. In 2012, Jon Tester had an A- rating from the National Rifle Association. In 2006, while he was first running for the Senate, he was accused of not wanting anyone to know he, “…opposes a gay-marriage ban. Thinks flag-burning is a right. And supports higher taxes.” His response was that he supports neither gay marriage, nor flag burning, but is opposed to amending the Constitution for either (he has since endorsed the right to same-sex marriage). For his part, Governor Bullock has been openly critical of Bernie Sanders and his platform.

In West Virginia, Trump won by a 42.2-point margin, the second largest of any state. In 2012, Democrat Joe Manchin III beat his Republican challenger 60.6% to 36.5%. Senator Manchin had an A rating from the NRA in 2012, and has regularly attacked the Environmental Protection Agency for its efforts to limit greenhouse gases.

Understandably, to many a committed liberal some of these positions might seem unconscionable. I grew up 30 minutes away from Sandy Hook Elementary School. It was horrifying to watch the man for whom I worked vote to allow social security recipients clinically unable to manage their own benefits access to firearms. Still, the exercise in cultural sensitivity lead to a clearer understanding that issues and values are not universal, they are local. For example, over 89% of the population in Montana is ‘white only;’ the second largest demographic is ‘American Indian and Alaskan Native’ at a little over 6%. Expecting a platform of racial equality to bear any sort of relevance to such a constituency is naïve at best. In the top 10 coal mining counties in the country in 2012, coal jobs in rural areas accounted for over 39% of total wages in 2012. West Virginia is the second highest coal producer in the country. Needless to say, it is hard to imagine a pro-environmental regulation platform gaining any traction.

Going Forward

The answer is not to abandon the fight for civil rights, or a healthier planet, or restricted access to firearms for the mentally ill. The national stage is the perfect arena for liberal stalwarts to establish their vision for a more progressive society, but engaging in a ‘mission to civilize’ is counterproductive and will undoubtedly deal lasting damage to the very platform it hopes to establish. The most universally relevant Democratic principles - shared economic prosperity, inclusive health-coverage, access to educational opportunities – should form the core platform of any candidate while allowing for flexibility in tailoring the message to a particular constituency. Change comes from the bottom-up. For all intents and purposes, the progressive agenda is the right one for the country. The issue is how best to realize it. The job for the next generation of liberal leaders is to address at the local level the root causes of misinformed voting, bad policy, and inequality of opportunity. Increasing the efficiency of public schools, developing programs to encourage the transition to institutions of higher education, minimizing the social cleavages created by rapidly evolving racial and cultural demographics – these are all challenges that will demand our time and energy. For now, let’s start worrying about winning.

-Simone Kanter

How Democrats Need to Reshift Their Focus for 2018

Come the 2018 Midterm Elections, Democrats must secure a majority in the House. With the litany of failures to secure seats during the special elections, the outcome looks bleak if the DNC refuses to change its campaigning tactics. Historically, the party in power tends to lose seats during midterm elections, and considering the Trump Administration’s rapidly falling approval ratings, the Democrats should be able to make gains in Congress. However, the party cannot rely on President Trump’s unpopularity to fill seats. The party must undergo systematic changes in its leadership and campaigning to regain the trust of rural Americans.

One of the most publicized elections of the year occurred in Georgia’s sixth district when DNC-backed candidate Jon Ossoff lost to Republican Karen Handel in the most expensive House race in history. Ossoff outraised his competitor 5 to 1 and received an additional $5 million from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Yet, Handel won by a margin of about six percentage points in an area where Donald Trump’s approval rating was only 35%. Democrats considered Georgia’s sixth district to be a possible win, despite being historically Republican. The election points towards a failing of the Democratic Party to secure voters’ trust, namely in southern and rural areas of the country.

The national party has become increasingly disconnected from the desires of democratic voters. Per the Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in April, the majority of Americans feel that the Democratic Party is out-of-touch with the concerns of the public. Considering the scandal that came to light when the DNC’s emails leaked-- that the committee had allegedly worked to undermine Bernie Sanders’ campaign-- Americans’ distrust of the party is hardly surprising.

The DNC failed voters on two fronts. First, refusing to acknowledge the appeal Sanders’ campaign had to rural and blue-collar workers. One leaked email revealed that DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach had planned to push the narrative that Sanders “never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." Such a narrative reveals quite blatantly that the Democratic Party has failed to grasp which candidates appeal to the majority of voters. Second, the leak reinforces the wariness two-thirds of Americans feel towards the Democratic Party. The DNC, by nature, should not be conspiring to support one candidate over the other.

While voters all over the country are disenchanted by the Democratic Party, the culture of rural areas, and the specific economic issues that plague blue-collar workers create a specific kind of distrust. One can safely assume the metropolitan areas of this country, college towns, and wealthy suburbs will almost always vote Democrat in congressional elections.

Rural areas dominated by working-class voters, while usually Republican strongholds, may be contested more than ever. Bernie Sanders’ class-focused message led him to surprising wins in Indiana, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming, amongst other rural states during the Democratic Primaries. In fact, Sanders won nearly 60% of rural counties during the Primaries according to the Wall Street Journal.

The DNC’s biggest shortcoming is its continuing support of moderates like Ossoff and Thompson; politicians who are, at best, nebulous on the economic issues most pertinent to working-class voters. For blue-collar workers still struggling with the aftermath of the Recession, politicians who refuse to take a clear stand on economic issues like unemployment. During the special election, Ossoff was criticized for his refusal to speak explicitly on his economic platform. Hillary Clinton came under fire during the presidential election for saying that she wanted to put coal miners out of business. Granted, the quote was taken in context of replacing coal mining with renewable energy sources, but such grand plans do little to soothe the worry of rural workers facing underemployment and poverty.

If anything, the presidential election has provided the DNC with the greatest insight into what the party must do if it wants to secure a majority in the House, and later, the presidency. No figure is less emblematic of blue-collar values than a billionaire real estate mogul from New York City. Yet, Donald Trump’s populist platform mobilized rural areas in the United States in a way that the Democratic Party has failed to for years. Regardless of whether or not Trump actually follows through on his campaign promises, rural constituents felt listened-to for the first time in a long time. The GOP presented wary voters with an alternative to career politicians with a promise to “drain the swamp.” Conversely, the Democratic Party continues to push candidates supported by and funded by the elite politicians and organizations rural and working-class voters distrust.

Similarly, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders mobilized rural voters in a way that Hillary Clinton was incapable of doing. Sanders was, by all accounts, an outsider far removed from the Washington elite, and, most notably, not a millionaire. His willingness to address wealth disparity, job loss, namely in coal mining and factories, and his support of pro-agricultural initiatives spoke to voters. Where Clinton seemed over-polished and detached, Sanders brashly criticized the millionaires and billionaires, many of whom have come to dominate party politics.

The districts that might have once been considered lost causes, might not be as much anymore. Areas like Georgia’s sixth district and South Carolina’s fifth district became battlegrounds this summer when traditionally there would have been no question what party would win. An anti-Trump sentiment spreads across the country and more progressive groups are being founded in red states, the Democratic Party needs to take advantage of the swelling Trump opposition to win big during the Midterms.

Over the summer, angry constituents swarmed the town hall meetings of Republican lawmakers in places like Utah, Iowa, and Kentucky. The Indivisible Project, a grassroots movement aimed at opposing the Trump Administration and electing Progressives to office has spread to small towns across the country. The Democratic Party has the chance to capitalize on anti-Trump sentiment, but if the Party does not work to regain rural voters’ trust, Democratic candidates will continue to fall short like they did in Georgia and South Carolina. 

-Emma Mahler

An Irony: The Trump Presidency has Hijacked American Sports

Eric Heiden, the iconic American speed skater who set the 1980 Winter Olympic Games on fire, once said, “Sports and politics don’t mix.” Referring to President Jimmy Carter’s boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow, Heiden, had he qualified, would have defied the President’s Summer Olympics’ embargo. Ultimately, Heiden did not qualify, the United States did not participate in Moscow, and four years later, the Soviet Union was a tit for tat no-show for the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.

Heiden’s claim that sports and politics don’t mix is wishful thinking in America today, especially for the many Americans who retreat to sports as an escape from the nation’s polarized political atmosphere and those whose neglect politics outright. Historically, athletes have used their platform to express political beliefs and have faced the consequences, including the criticism and repercussions of Muhammad Ali’s decision to dodge the Vietnam War, the backlash from John Carlos’s and Tommie Smith’s Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics, and the St. Louis Police Officers Association’s counterblast to the St. Louis Rams’ “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” gesture in response to Michael Brown’s killing by a police officer.

However, in an era when athletes have particularly been propelling themselves into political advocacy, President Donald Trump, like no President before him, has used his bully pulpit to command the American sports narrative. When taking into consideration the way conservatives historically view mixing sports and politics, this could not be a more ironic circumstance during Trump’s tenure in the White House.

Trump’s sharp rhetoric has enlivened much of the conservative-leaning demographics of American sports fans, particularly with his scathing, derogatory rhetoric towards the athletes who kneel during the traditional pre-game recital of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” A trend most prominently featured in America’s largest and most popular sporting enterprise, the National Football League (NFL), taking a knee during the National Anthem rose to the spotlight when former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, sat during the National Anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice in the United States, stating, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” However, after consulting former Green Beret and retired NFL player Nate Boyer, Kaepernick altered his protest and kneeled, setting off a chain reaction throughout American sports, not just the NFL, which has received mass attention and scrutiny from the media.

Although Kaepernick’s polarizing actions predated Donald Trump’s election, the 45th President has repeatedly attacked him and taken a hardline stance against players who, in his view, “disrespect our flag.” In August 2016, GOP nominee Trump said of Kaepernick’s protest, “I think it’s a terrible thing. And, you know, maybe he should find a new country that works better for him. Let him try. It won’t happen.” President Trump also blasted the beleaguered quarterback at a rally in March 2017 by appealing to his crowd of supporters who, according to Trump, “...like it when people actually stand for the flag.” What may be the most impactful is the reasonable assessment that Trump single-handedly ruined Kaepernick’s NFL career. The quarterback remains unsigned in the NFL quite possibly because of the President’s apparent threat to NFL owners, which, according to Sports Illustrated’s Jonathan Jones, goes as follows: “Sign Kaepernick and feel the wrath of the 63 million people who voted for me, some of whom are fans of your team.”

By decrying the protest of the National Anthem and encouraging NFL owners to fire players who kneel during the anthem, Trump has dismissed the ideals of freedom of speech as explicitly permitted in the Constitution’s First Amendment. He has also effectively rallied his steadfast supporters to support the idea that exercising a right afforded to people in the United States demonstrates the greatest extent of anti-Americanism and warrants exclusion from society.

The Colin Kaepernick saga only scratches the surface of President Trump’s invasion ofthe American sports landscape. At a rally in Alabama for the purpose of endorsing Luther Strange for Senate, Trump extended his criticism of Kaepernick and doubled-down on his crusade against the NFL. He also blasted the NFL for “ruining the game” because of the league’s efforts to institute new rules that limit head injuries that have been proven fatal, especially in wake of recent reports confirming a correlation between football and CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy). Furthermore, Trump’s election cast a shadow over the status of the traditional visit to the White House for a major sport’s champions, and a day after Trump preached to his Alabama choir, the President rescinded the invitation to the White House for the 2017 National Basketball Association (NBA) Champion Golden State Warriors after their star player, Stephen Curry, expressed his disinterest in attending an event hosted by President Trump at the White House.

The above actions received widespread condemnation from notable NFL and NBA athletes, spurring demonstrations in every NFL game played the following weekend and afterwards one by NBA superstar and outspoken Trump Critic LeBron James and his Cleveland Cavaliers in their first game of the season. In wake of this, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell received the Presidential seal of disapproval after not committing to instituting a rule that would make standing during the National Anthem a league-wide policy (though he did express the belief on behalf of the NFL that the players “should” stand).

Trump’s well-documented undermining of the media is no different when it comes to sports media, particularly ESPN, which abides by its motto: “the worldwide leader in sports.” Notably, in response to ESPN on-air personality Jemele Hill’s scathing tweet about the President being a “white supremacist,” Trump slammed the sports network for continuing Hill’s employment, tweeting that it is “no wonder [why] ESPN ratings have tanked.” Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred to Hill’s anti-Trump tweets as a “fireable offense,” though it is ambiguous if her actions legally warrant her firing from the network. These tweets also angered a conservative base that accused ESPN of applying a double standard when it dismissed baseball analyst Curt Schilling for sharing a Facebook post in response to the controversial North Carolina bathroom bill regarding transgender persons but not disciplining Hill.

Much of Trump’s politicization of sports carries significant irony. Common conservative belief advocates for the “stick to sports” message, which, according to High Point University associate professor Paul Ringel, is a message “...that focuses as much on preserving a national system of economic and social inequality as it does on maintaining white supremacy.” Modern conservatives have heavily criticized ESPN for not “sticking to sports” and have blamed ESPN’s recent layoffs on the network’s tendency to speak about political issues relating to sports. However, Trump himself rallied his base in staunch opposition against talking about subjects of societal importance beyond the playing field by using every ounce of his stature as President of the United States, thereby directly mixing sports and politics.

Despite the aforementioned hypocrisy, Trump has successfully maneuvered his way around inconsistencies like mixing sports and politics during his presidency. Trump framed the sports protests as unpatriotic and brought his impenetrable base along for the ride. As a result, millions of sports fans have put pressure on American sports for “disrespecting” America. The President, like a puppeteer, attempts to control the sports landscape, and he can manipulate it however he pleases.

Indianapolis Colts’ safety Darius Butler said he adopts Kaepernick’s protest-kneel because he doesn’t want Trump to “hijack the narrative.” With the President mixing sports and politics, deeming First Amendment rights unpatriotic, and causing widespread outrage as a result of his actions, he has done exactly that, permanently killing the notion of “stick to sports.”

- Jake Steel

Governor's Race in Georgia Resurrects a History of Governmental Voter Suppression

The Georgia gubernatorial race is fast approaching and the ballot has drawn some dueling contenders. Georgia has been a topic of recent discussion, as efforts to increase Democratic turnout and shift the state into battleground territory appear to be making some leeway. Stacey Abrams, the former House Minority leader, is the prominent democratic candidate; she stands to become the first Democratic governor since Roy Barnes (R) was elected in 1998. On the other side of the aisle are a slew of Republican candidates, but one stands out in clear opposition to Abrams, especially when you examine their political history. Although she is known for working with Republicans to get bills passed in the house, Abrams has butted heads with one prominent Georgia republican: Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

The two clashed in 2014 over claims of voter suppression. Abrams founded The New Georgia Project, an organization with the goal of registering over 100,000 Georgia voters--minorities, women, and young people. The New Georgia project was making significant progress in voter registration, but Kemp’s office subpoenaed the group on suspension of registering fraudulent voter applications. The investigation revealed 51 fraudulent or suspect forms out the 85,000 investigated. Later that year, The New Georgia Project filed a lawsuit against Kemp on the accusation that his office had not processed over 40,000 applications from The New Georgia Project. The New Georgia Project’s claim of voter suppression stems from the fact that, statistically, the majority of those applicants would be Democrats, especially given the that the allegedly affected counties, Fulton, DeKalb, Chatham, Muscogee, and Clayton County, have all been overwhelmingly blue in recent presidential elections. The case against Kemp’s office was dismissed, but that is not the only lawsuit concerning voter suppression that has been filed against the Secretary.

Kemp was hit with three separate lawsuits concerning voter issues in 2016. The first was filed by Common Cause, a government watchdog group, and the Georgia NAACP under the assertion that Georgia use of “confirmation of address” notices were in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). These notices are sent to voters who have not cast a ballot in three years and, if they do not respond, they are kicked off the voter rolls. The second lawsuit was filed by Project Vote, a nonpartisan voting rights group, in response to Kemp’s refusal to release voter registration records, specifically those relating to rejected applicants, which they assert is in violation of the NVRA. The third lawsuit brought against Kemp accused him of blocking minority vote via the state’s requirement for “strict matching” on voter information. These mismatches in information, which can be as small as misplacement of apostrophe, can cause individual’s applications to be rejected.

The groups who brought this third suit, including the Georgia NAACP and the Georgia Coalition for the People's’ Agenda, claim this rule disproportionately affects minority voters, with 76.3% of the 34,874 denied applicants identifying as minorities. Georgia temporarily halted the requirements while it tried to work towards a settlement. Additionally, the legal action against Kemp is not a new phenomenon. Karen Handel, the previous Secretary of State, was also bombarded with accusations of voter suppression during her time in office.

These lawsuits against Kemp affect Abrams and the Democratic party in a massive way. It is a corner-stone in democratic political strategy to “get out the vote” and Georgia is a prime example of that idea in practice. Georgia politicians on both sides of the aisle have asserted that Georgia elections are becoming a matter of who shows up to cast a ballot. However, if these allegations of governmental voter suppression are accurate, it could make the Democrats’ battle even more daunting than previously believed. A “get out the vote” strategy only works if registration is met with a swift and fair examination and decision. If Stacy Abrams’ widespread registration efforts are blocked by Kemp and his administration, her chances of winning the governorship become a quickly-receding dream.

- Ava Vecellio

Russia's Behavior and What It Can Teach Us About the International System

The race for public enemy number one is currently a nail-biter. The infamous “Russia investigation” continues, President Trump and Kim Jong-Un continue to play verbal tennis, and Iran announces its test of a medium-range ballistic missile capable of hitting Israel. And although the latter turned out to be fake news from Iranian state media, it still prompted a twitter takedown of the Iran deal by the Commander in Chief. The international political system seems like a confusing, nuclear-armed circus accelerating into a soon-to-be deadly spiral. Why does Russia continuously act so belligerent towardsthe United States? And what does it mean when Kim Jong-Un calls Donald Trump a “dotard”? The former is explainable through international relations theory. The latter is uncharted territory, and is perhaps too confusing to begin to delve into.

Through the case of Russia, we can explain characteristics of the international system as well as reasonable assumptions about where Russia’s behavior will be heading in the near future. Reacting to international news is not enough; one must be proactive in defining methods of analysis to digest the constant flow information from news sources. Utilizing the analysis framework known as the “strategic perspective,” there are three essential assumptions to consider:

-A leader's top priority is to stay in power

-Domestic politics and foreign policy are inextricably linked

-Relations between nations and between leaders are driven by strategic considerations

Through the strategic perspective, we can understand seemingly basic, yet fundamental, ideas about how international relations works. However, there is one more assumption we need to understand before moving forward to analyzing real world problems. Simplifying the world into two types of governments, autocrats and democrats, highlights that these entities function in different ways. We will focus in on one main difference, however. In autocracies, the leader is beholden to a small group of people in order to retain power, called a “winning coalition”, while democratic leaders are beholden to a large winning coalition. Due to the sheer number of people in their winning coalitions, democrats typically win elections through offering public goods, like tax breaks or infrastructure spending. Autocrats keep their winning coalitions loyal through private goods, such as cash or houses. This is exactly why democracies have more rights, because freedoms are public goods, and democratic leaders will be incentivized to increase citizen freedoms in the hopes of being reelected. Likewise, autocracies will tend to have lesser rights because leaders do not need to appeal to the masses for reelection. Freedoms of the assembly and the like can lead to dissent, which is why these freedoms are not common in autocratic countries.  

Through the strategic perspective’s three assumptions and understanding the different political realities in autocracies and democracies, Russia’s political actions can be thoroughly and properly analyzed.

Russian Analysis Overview

Analyzing Russia’s actions and the reasons for such actions allows us to investigate what is truly going on in Russia, and how they are likely to act in the near future. However, it is important to keep this analysis logic-based. When Senator John McCain stated that “Vladimir Putin is a thug, and a murderer, and a killer, and a KGB agent” he was merely playing good political theatre, not conducting a proper logical analysis. Putin may very well be all of those things; however, emotional statements like that should not concern us as we move forward in our analysis.

As we are looking to give a simple projection of Russia’s likely actions in the near future, we should analyze contemporary actions. In general, we will be covering 2014’s annexation of Crimea, Russia’s involvement in Syria starting in 2015, and Russia’s alleged election hacking during the 2016 United States presidential election.

Ukraine

Noting that Vladimir Putin’s primary objective is to stay in power, it would behoove him to keep money-making ventures open for business. Revolution in Ukraine resulted in the ousting of the pro-Russian government in lieu of a pro-American government. This led to a strategic quandary: one of Russia’s only three warm-water ports in the world was, and continues to be, located in Crimea, and its existence could be in danger should the pro-American government close the port. Russia acted quickly and annexed Crimea to the chagrin of Western powers; however, it was a move that removed Western leverage over the Russian government. The port in Crimea holds great economic and military importance and ultimately, that is why Putin acted in Ukraine.  Strategically speaking, this move also improves Russia’s control on their sphere of influence and allows Putin the ability to have an aggressive foreign policy. Victories on the foreign policy front are of utmost importance when politics becomes tough domestically.  

Russia’s Economy

Russia is heavily dependent on the oil market as it is a major exporter, which is why they’ve retained the port in Ukraine. As of 2016, Russia was the top crude oil producer and second largest exporter in the world.  Russia’s economy is strongly correlated to crude oil prices, as is observed below.    

GDP is a metric that measures how the Russian economy is performing, which mostly affects Russia’s citizens not in Vladimir’s winning coalition.  As Russia is more autocratic, the question becomes: “Why does the economy matter if Putin doesn’t truly need the common citizens’ votes?” It doesn’t matter what system of government is present if the people rebel, which is a reason why most autocratic countries do not have a free press. The key to being a successful autocratic leader is giving citizens just enough so they do not rebel, yet not taking too much away from the private goods given to the small winning coalition. However, when the vast majority of the citizens are experiencing economic difficulties, it can be a good strategy to distract and deflect from the crisis. Putin did just this.

Syria

In 2015, oil prices take a significant hit, and by association, so does Russia’s economy. As just noted, Putin knows that should the economic conditions deteriorate, he could be in risk of a revolution. His method of counteracting that was a foreign policy success, or the public good of patriotism. Seeing that President Obama did not hold his word when drawing the infamous red line, Putin saw Obama fail to back up his threats. As a result, Putin assumed correctly that there would not be a great threat from America while attempting to interject in America’s sphere of influence in the Middle East. Furthermore, there was also a Russian naval station in Syria, where Russia had the capabilities to maintain their Mediterranean fleet, thus improving their foreign policy power and their ability to maintain their economy through exports.  Syria was not only a foreign policy victory that distracted from economic difficulties, it also assisted the Russian leader’s ability to stay in power through the ability to continue to repair ships outside of Russia in the Mediterranean.

Election Hacking

In 2016, Crude Oil prices hit a new low and Russia’s GDP followed suit. The economy forced Russia to make choices between domestic living standards and defense spending. Of course, they chose defense spending, as most autocracies do.  However, after getting involved in Syria and annexing Ukraine, more military action was most likely the last option. Luckily for Vladimir, a new opportunity arose: The 2016 American presidential elections. Through influencing the 2016 election Putin may not necessarily get the public good of a foreign policy victory, he could have a more Russia-friendly American leader while simultaneously eroding confidence in the American system, should he be caught.  Through successfully influencing the American election, he could also get US sanctions on key individuals in Putin’s winning coalition lifted, thus improving his chances of staying in power.   

Similar Actions By Other Nations

It is important to note that Russia’s actions are not specific to Russia; they are indicative of how international politics works. For example, President Bill Clinton likely utilized diversionary tactics during the Monica Lewinsky scandal by bombing the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.  Furthermore, the United States has engaged in influencing elections by releasing damaging information on communist candidates during the 1990 Nicaraguan elections, which is one example of many. And most know of the United States and Britain overthrowing Iranian democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq via coup in 1953.

The goal in noting these events is not to obtain some moral equivalency between the two, but to illustrate that morals are not what drives international relations. Strategic interest for staying in power, protecting foreign interests, and finding a common enemy during times of domestic distress are common in today’s international system. In order to analyze international events, such as Russia annexing Crimea or inserting itself in the Syrian Civil War, it begins and ends with the strategic interests of the leader and his winning coalition. What Vladimir Putin wants is to stay in power, and his winning coalition wants to continue to be wealthy and live comfortable lives. This is the nature of the system, and highlights why the United States targets wealthy individuals when sanctioning Russia, as opposed to the economy at large.        

Conclusion

In the end, once the strategic perspective framework is utilized, few pieces of additional information are needed. What type of political representation does country A have? How big is leader A’s winning coalition? How is the domestic economy performing, and what is the relation between country A the occupied country B? These are all questions that need to be answered before truly beginning to understand why something is presently happening. And once these questions are answered, the subsequent step is to look ahead. What’s next for country A, and in our case, Russia? Due to the strategic importance of Crimea to the economy and Russia’s ability to exert foreign policy power, Russia’s dropping of Crimea appears unlikely.  Furthermore, Syria has a naval station that is quite important to Russia’s naval power, and I cannot see Russia letting the Assad government be defeated without a fight. The key variable lies in Russia’s GDP and Oil prices. Should the oil prices drop and further affect the domestic economy, expect to see more aggressive foreign policy in the form of diversionary tactics. And should the oil prices increase and improve the domestic economy, look for Russia to have a more calm foreign policy by only protecting its interests in Crimea and Syria. The only wild card here is Putin’s desire to bring Russia back to its cold war political heights. Is Putin simply a man who wants to just stay in power? Or does his pride for his country motivate him for something much more?  One thing is for sure, only time will tell.  

-Omar Naguib

We Don't Have a Female President: Let's Look at Countries Who Do

Many Americans are currently imagining a country with a female president. Throughout 2016, we heard time and time again that it was time for a female leader. And now, some claim that the election results shed light on an overall inability or unreadiness on part of the United States in electing a female president.

Stemming from this discussion and inspired by a New York Times article regarding gender equality in Angela Merkel’s Germany, I have decided to take a look at the countries in which females occupy leadership positions and what that means for the overall status of women in the workforce. What does having a female leader in office mean for gender equality in employment in those countries? Does having a female president or prime minister equate with progressive roles of women in the private sector?

According to a group of German girls who have lived most of their lives under the leadership of a female chancellor (in office since 2005), the answer is no. The New York Times piece suggests Merkel’s leadership produces a far more progressive image of Germany abroad than is the case within its borders. The article delves into research that shows Merkel’s leadership is misleading; as a report shows 93% of all executive board members in Germany’s 160 publicly traded companies are men.

This information suggests that even in a country like Germany, long dominated by the figure of a female leader, gender inequality in employment persists. In fact, German women are still paid 21% less than men.

In order to understand where the world stands on gender equality, I have consulted The Global Gender Gap report of 2016, which is produced yearly by the World Economic Forum. The report assesses the gender equality gap existing in each country and subsequently assigns each country a score; taking into consideration many indicators such as the number of women participating in the labour force, the ratio of wage equality between women and men, and the representation of women within company hierarchy. According to this report, as is confirmed in another study produced by Glassdoor Economic Research, Nordic European countries are ranked the highest for equal gender employment opportunities.

With Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden accounting for top 4 in the world respectively, the question of whether female representation in politics equates with female progress in the private sector can be better approached. Amongst these four countries, known for their progress in both policy concerning gender equality and the subsequent status of women in their society, only Sweden is lead by a female prime minister since 2013, namely Erna Solberg.

In Norway, the female Norwegian experience is incredibly positive, with high participation in the workforce having a decisive effect on the country’s overall performance. In an interview given to the OECD Observer, Norway’s Minister of Finance Sigbjørn Johnsen explains that the increase in female participation in the workforce took place at a time in which there was a rise in demand for labor. However, it was possible because of a number of parental provision policies implemented by the state such as subsidized day-care centres for children, which allowed the increase in female participation. 

Prime Minister Solberg has been a leading voice for the empowerment of women and girls and the importance of gender equality and female representation in politics to achieve sustainable development. In a speech given at the Women In Parliament summer summit in 2014, Solberg spoke about Norway’s commitment to invest in young girl’s education, which she claims is the most powerful investment for development, “when you educate a girl, you educate a nation”, Solberg said.   

Although Norway is lead by a female representative who is a leading voice advocating for gender equality, this doesn’t seem to be a necessary requirement for a country to have a successful representation of women in the workplace. Looking at countries with prominent female figures, such as Germany and the United Kingdom for example, reinforces this point. Like Germany, the UK also has some progress to be made in the realm of gender equality, as it is ranked 20th out of 144 countries in the aforementioned Global Gender Gap Report. As is emphasized in an article published in The Guardian by Angela Monaghan, the UK has “one of the worst records for gender equality at work”, particularly due to the lack in services to aid working mothers.

Given that neither Germany nor the UK exemplify countries with a successful gender balance in the workforce, it is worth evaluating the figures of their two strong female leaders. Interestingly, Merkel and May are both candidates pertaining to conservative parties and appealing to conservative platforms, often described as “cold” and “aggressive” female figures, apparently less relatable to the stereotypical qualities attributed to women of softness and vulnerability. Perhaps this hawkish attitude is what has allowed them to successfully climb the political ladder within their countries. Perhaps this is the attitude that women in politics have to abide to in order to win, making themselves appear more masculine.

Angela Merkel has spent most of her political career under emphasizing her gender, which has lead to many accusing her of prioritizing other provisions over gender equality. In an article titled “The World’s Most Powerful Woman Won’t Call Herself a Feminist”, Susan Chira writes about her tendency to deviate attention from her gender and adopt more of a gender-neutral attitude. The same was said of Prime Minister May, with a myriad of headlines focusing on the significance of her sex as she secured her position as prime minister following the Brexit vote. Discussion regarding these two female leaders’ positions as advocates for gender equality is further discussed in a piece published by Politico, titled “Theresa May: Female but not feminist”, which draws upon similar conclusions.

Having looked at two of the most prominent female national leaders of the present moment and having established that neither of them is a particular advocate for gender equality in employment, it seems that having a female leader is not directly correlated with having progressive female roles domestically. In fact, the policies undertaken by most Nordic European countries that lead the way for gender equality in the workforce were mostly taken under the leadership of male politicians. In conclusion, it appears that having a female leader doesn’t necessary mean progress for women in a given nation. It appears to me that what we need is higher representation of women in politics, but especially female politicians that understand gender equality as an issue that must be prioritized; society as a whole will benefit as a result.

- Ludovica Grieco

Social Media's Dark, Unintended Consequences

Searching for news sources that fit their hyper-partisan appetite, Americans are heading to social media sites like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter for their news in staggering numbers. Many appear to have filled their newsfeeds and subscription lists with sensational clickbait or sound bites rather than relying on professional articles written by reputable news organizations; it almost appears as if Americans are confusing reliable reporting from The New York Times with politically-slanted NowThis News videos proliferating on Facebook.

Unfortunately, accurate and informative content can be hard to find on these social media sites. Remember when Facebook erroneously spread People Magazine’s misquotation of an interview President Trump did in 1998? Or the Pizzagate scandal which spread across InfoWars Youtube page? Not to mention the countless other examples of “fake news” that social media has been lit ablaze with. Some, like teens in Veles, Macedonia, have even earned enough advertising revenue by reposting fake articles to justify dropping out of high school and continuing to cash in on conservative clickbait tendencies.

Fake news ‒ and the continual attacks on mainstream media as illegitimate ‒ are incredibly damaging to the integrity of journalists and the population as a whole. The understanding that a free and open press is a fundamental part of the U.S. Constitution no longer seems apparent. With each passing day, an educated citizenry self-governing the American experiment seems more unattainable because of the news we are digesting.

On the surface of this existential crisis is fake news, but lurking underneath is hateful, radical, and extremist content emboldening dangerous homegrown terrorists. Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, everyone’s favorite social media apps, seem to be little more than bystanders.

Since its origins, ISIS has utilized social media as a digital weapon to recruit members and spread its message to a global audience. Youtube videos, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts abound with the infamous Anwar Al-Awlaki ‒ just one amongst many imams ‒ preaching hateful versions of Quranic verses that justify jihad against America and our allies. A quick 5 minute search will yield over 71,400 videos touting his radical message for millions to view.

While uncomfortable to many, social media companies’ advertising-driven business model allows them to profit from views and clicks on extremist content. Video producers also bask in the monetary gain, using the funds to support global terrorist operations abroad. Unintentionally then, Google, Youtube, and Facebook’s revenue model may be supporting ISIS, their counterparts, and homegrown terrorists around the globe. Should stockholders vote to change Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook’s business model in the face of the global war on terrorism?

 From their humble origins, none of these three sites envisioned radical extremist users. Facebook began as a college-only dating site, Youtube as a way to share home videos, and Twitter as a way to speak your mind in 140 characters or less. Today, however, their paradigms have shifted and the seething hatred of American values has penetrated once innocent social media sites. This has put these Silicon Valley titans at a crossroads between protecting free speech and profiting off this content, or upholding their terms of service and doing everything possible to delete it.

Yet is there any evidence suggesting that social media has directly caused terrorism? Lawsuits filed against Google, Twitter, and Facebook from the San Bernardino shootings allege that they “knowingly and recklessly” provided ISIS with “a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits.” The Showtime documentary American Jihad explains how Youtube videos, Facebook pages, and Twitter posts are radicalizing many and causing them to commit violent acts in the name of ISIS, without ever traveling to the group’s homebase in Syria and Iraq. Plenty of examples illustrate the homegrown terrorist threat America now faces; the Boston Marathon bombing, Orlando nightclub attack and others were all linked to perpetrators’ ability to access radical content from the confines of their home.

Logically, we’d expect these social media companies to do more than disavow the radical undercurrent of their sites. Yet with 500 hours of content uploaded every minute, it’s impossible for Youtube employees to continually monitor everyone who spreads extremist ideology online. Even if they do block users with potentially violent tendencies, new accounts continue to spawn with identical videos spreading the same messages. This removal and reappearance process is like a never-ending whack-a-mole cycle.

Despite taking recent steps to improve their content curation, it’s likely impossible to root out all extremists from social media without a computer algorithm to do it quicker than humans can. With advertising agencies controlling corporations’ ads, the job is in their hands to ensure viewers don’t see a Mercedes E-Class ad on a video sympathizing with ISIS. Utilizing a high-functioning system called programmatic advertising, this computer algorithm seeks out the most viewed and clicked content within seconds. As a result, this rapid tool can place ads on content humans don’t have time to review for hateful undertones, often displaying a company’s ad on content unreflective of their values. Despite blacklisting options being available, programmatic ads face the same dilemma social media companies do: banning a user from running ads is impossible when others pop up with the same video.

Without much foresight when their platforms originated, it seems like Google, Youtube, and Facebook may have created a living Frankenstein. Wary of letting radical messages continue to spread, it might be time for outside actors to intervene in social media’s fight against terrorism. Online content is a public good, and therefore government interference is justifiable within reason. If the U.S. is going to continue fighting terrorism abroad, the government should look online first.

-Jordan Wolken

A Local's Perspective on the GA-6 Special Election

If I were to have told you that a 30-year-old investigative filmmaker and former political aide who had never served in any elected legislative capacity would come within 2 percentage points of becoming a congressman in a field of 17 other candidates, would you have believed me? What if I also were to have told you that this young upstart is running as a Democrat in a district that has not been represented by a Democrat in almost forty years?

Only in the Trump era can a story like this not only be feasible, but also true. On April 18, Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District (GA-6), which constitutes the suburbs outside of Atlanta’s metropolitan sector, held a special election for the House of Representative position left open due to Tom Price’s appointment to as Secretary of Health and Human Services. In this nonpartisan blanket primary, during which all candidates, regardless of political party, vying for the same elected office run against each other at once, Jon Ossoff, the leading Democratic candidate, received 92,390 votes, constituting 48.1% of the district and falling short of the 50%+ margin to win the seat outright. In a June 20 runoff, Ossoff will face the next highest vote-getter, former Georgia Secretary of State and Republican frontrunner Karen Handel, who received 37,993 votes and 19.8% of the district. Whichever candidate breaks the 50% threshold in the runoff will win the vacant GA-6 seat.

As a resident of GA-6, this election, quite literally, hits home. After coincidentally going back to my hometown Atlanta suburbs the day after the special election, something felt different: people cared. Friends of mine, mostly between 18 and 22, told me about their experiences volunteering, canvassing, and feeling as if they had made a difference as a part of the Ossoff campaign. Although my passion for politics bloomed while going to school in New York, I fully understood the consequences that this special election carries on a local and national level.

GA-6 has voted overwhelmingly red since 1979 for three notable Republicans: former Speaker of the House and “Republican Revolution” leader Newt Gingrich (1979-1999), current Senior Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson (1999-2005), and Price (2005-2017). The 1990 GA-6 election, during which Gingrich held his seat by 0.6% against Democratic opponent David Worley, is the only exception to what has traditionally been Republican dominance. However, as evidenced by Ossoff’s wide support group beyond GA-6, the campaign to “flip the sixth” has threatened to upend precedent and take a seat away from the Republican-controlled House.

The unusually large amount of campaign yard signs I saw supporting Ossoff, let alone a Democratic candidate, demonstrate that the left-leaners of the GA-6 have pooled all their resources towards the up-and-comer. This unity for Ossoff threatens the district’s Republican stranglehold along with the fractured Republican support for its candidates in the primary. After witnessing the usual amount of yard signs promoting GOP candidates, I noticed the inconsistencies of whom the signs endorsed, mostly favoring Handel, Dan Moody, Bob Gray and Judson Hill. This perfectly reflected the reality of eleven Republican candidates vying for Price’s old seat in the primary. Though Republicans received 51% of the April 18 vote, with Handel leading the field, the massive coalition for Ossoff coupled with the Republicans’ failure to rally around one candidate in the primary nearly cost them their seat.

This turn of events may have been expected, however. While both Republican nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney outperformed Obama by a wide margin in GA-6 during the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, respectively, Trump squeaked past Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the district this past November. The McCain and Romney vote and its contrast with the Trump vote deduces that GA-6 prefers establishment conservatives, and Handel’s political ideology, which aligns with Price’s, fits the bill. Statistics back this up, as well: the candidates who identified the most with Trump performed worse in the primary; though she supported him for President, Handel shied away from mentioning the President during her campaign.

Per the inevitable, the Republican Party has coalesced around Handel since she secured the nomination. The President himself has vocalized his support for the GOP nominee by attacking Ossoff both on Twitter and more fiercely in an April speech to the National Rifle Association in Atlanta, and he will likely continue to do so leading up to the June 20th runoff. Handel has followed suit by graciously asking for and accepting Trump’s endorsement. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will even make a trip to the district next week to stump for Handel and raise money for what has already become the most expensive House race in history, with nearly $30 million spent on TV ads alone at time of writing. 

President Trump investing in Handel begs an important question for Democrats: is this election pro-Ossoff or anti-Trump? The answer may be two-fold. Many 1990 GA-6 voters, particularly organized labor groups, resented Gingrich for standing against government intervention of the now defunct Eastern Air Lines, and Worley, a 32-year-old lawyer whom Gingrich had defeated twice before, represented the alternative, almost ‘flipping the sixth’ himself. In 2017, Trump’s low approval ratings, particularly that by the Democrats and left-leaners, parallel the circumstances that almost cost Gingrich his seat twenty seven years ago. Furthermore, many major news outlets have presented this election as a referendum against Trump, citing it as a test against the GOP.

Because of these circumstances, this election has transformed into a pro-Ossoff campaign. GA-6 resident desperate to turn the district blue in spite of the 45th President jumped on the bandwagon for a young, charismatic, scandal-free candidate who possesses “...a deliberative, professorial style somewhat similar to Barack Obama’s.” Ossoff has not only been endorsed by current Georgia Congressmen, Hank Johnson (GA-4) and John Lewis (GA-5), former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Bernie Sanders, the Daily Kos, and many celebrities, but he has also received millions of dollars in support. Although Ossoff lacks political experience and does not even live in GA-6 (though he previously lived there and currently lives just outside the district), he represents the anti-Trump coalition, kick starting his campaign with the slogan “Make Trump Furious.” Thus, a vote for Ossoff is assuredly a vote against Trump.

With the expectation that the Republican Party unites around Handel, Ossoff has an uphill battle despite his strong primary showing. The district has not sent a Democrat to Washington since 1974, and though Ossoff represents the best chance to “flip the sixth,” a Republican candidate with a high degree of support has historically maintained a winning edge in this district. Ossoff can very well win this election, but even if he loses, his campaign and the recent Kansas special election has put a scare into Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress on notice. If the 2010 House Elections are any historical indication, the GA-6 special election foreshadows the Democratic Party rising in 2018.

Just as interestingly, however, we should ask ourselves whether the competitiveness of the district is actually sustainable, to which I would answer: almost certainly. While there is merit to the notion that GA-6 would not have been in play had a more establishment GOP presidential candidate been on the ballot last November (i.e. Mitt Romney won the district by 72,000 votes in 2012), it can be argued that the demographic shifts within both the district itself and Georgia as a whole would have become too powerful to keep GA-6 an uncompetitive Republican seat for much longer. As more companies have relocated and/or expanded to the district over the last twenty years, GA-6 has experienced a notable influx of new residents, many of whom are non-white and college-educated. In Sandy Springs, a city located in the southernmost part of the district and home to the likes of UPS, Cox Enterprises, and Mercedes-Benz USA, the population of Asian persons increased 66.74% in the period 2000-2010. Likewise, the population of persons Hispanic or Latino origin grew 57.01% over the same period of time, all while the population of Caucasian persons fell 8.26%. I expect to see this trend reinforced in the 2020 census, with a strong likelihood of even higher growth among non-white people.

Most telling for the future, the Ossoff campaign has employed and motivated an upbeat and young base that has entered politics, many of whom I know personally. After getting a taste of participating in an election, these Ossoff supporters have demonstrated an eagerness to further their political activist efforts, especially in spite of President Trump.

Update: On June 20, 2017, Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff by a 51.9%-48.1% margin, surpassing the pre-election polling projections that predicted a deadlock the entire way. While Ossoff won early voting by nearly 10,000 votes, Handel greatly outperformed her opponent by 20,000 votes on election day voting. While Handel's victory extends the Republican grasp over GA-6 and leaves Democrats continuing to look for answers after their party's fifth special election loss in 2017, Democrats have continually outperformed their benchmarks in special elections and, as was the case with Republicans and Obama, the words "President Trump" have shown no signs of slowing down an impassioned Democratic base. This will make many House seats in the Trump era more competitive, let alone in Georgia's Sixth District. 

- Jake Steel & Jay Edlin (Guest Contributor from GA Tech)

Holding Trump Accountable to the Stock Market

President Trump has made a habit of touting the stock market’s success in the few months following his election. Back three weeks or so, when the Dow Jones was consistently in the green and soaring past 20,000 ‒ and later 21,000 ‒ for the first time ever, he tweeted about its rise on five separate occasions. His market rhetoric often carries conspicuous meaning; one Christmas Eve tweet reads,

“The world was gloomy before I won - there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!”

By claiming that his election victory increased investor confidence, he almost embodies Atlas ‒ the ancient Greek titan condemned by Zeus to hold up the sky’s weight ‒ as if he physically lifted the tickers himself.

Setting analogies aside, does Trump have authority to claim sole responsibility for the market’s rally? Yes and no. Yes, investors generally view Republicans and their pro-business plan for tax cuts and deregulation favorably, but that view isn’t exclusive to Trump or his policies. What matters more, most analysts agree, is the boom-and-bust economic cycle during a president’s four years ‒ which hinges more on the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy than any presidential policy. The Trump rally, therefore, likely has more to do with the Fed’s 7-year strategy of setting near-zero interest rates than anything else. Such low rates have artificially propped up asset prices to spur cheap borrowing and business investment. While this has helped stocks recover from the 2008 Great Recession, some investors are beginning to view prolonged low rates as a sign that we’re heading towards another market bubble.

The bubble theory could become reality if investors continue to downplay the policy risks associated with a Trump presidency; erratic behavior, a potential trade war with China, and reckless border wall spending are just beginning to factor into daily market movements. These (and other gaffes) will surely creep into investor’s minds at some point, clouding Trump’s ability to take responsibility for any future rallies.

Still, some market analysts credit Trump for roughly half of the post-election market gains. The monthly uptick in consumer confidence and increase in investors’ trading bonds for stocks are both signs of optimism towards Trump’s pro-business platform and its ability to spur economic growth. He also gets credit for using Twitter as a bully pulpit to convince auto companies like General Motors and Ford to invest at home (although there’s no conclusive evidence that his tweets actually move stock prices).

No matter how bullish your current market outlook is, it’s worth exploring diversification options to hedge against a future downturn. Even with an impressive post-election rally, investors shouldn’t expect it to continue forever. If a market bubble becomes clearer during his presidency, expect outlandish reactions from Trump. If he can take credit for the market’s success, he should own up to its failures too.

Holding Trump accountable for an imminent market downturn will be a tough albeit necessary challenge for Democrats moving forward. His thin-skinned nature makes him an easy target, as he’s shown a willingness to retaliate on Twitter against Democratic foes. On April 27, for example, he tweeted six different times blaming Democrats for their ineptitude. By continually riling up Democrats, he’s almost begging for them to berate him if the market performs poorly.

Their task will be made even easier, however, if a market downturn precedes a larger economic one. They can then claim, as some previously did when bubbles occurred during George W. Bush’s presidency, that they foresaw a rocky economic road ahead before the president has a chance to publicly indicate anything himself. If you believe that the stock market is in a bubble, then an economic downturn might be imminent. Plenty of historical research backs this assertion up, highlighting how Republican bull markets are usually a negative sign for the economy. Each major Republican tax cut ‒ Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover’s in 1924 and 1928, Ronald Reagan’s in 1981, and George W. Bush’s in 2001 and 2003 ‒ all led to huge economic crises, including the Great Depression in 1929, the 1987 Stock Market Crash, and the Great Recession in 2007-08.

Will the Trumped-up trickle-down tax cuts be next? We’ll have to wait and see. But if you believe the stock market is headed for darker days, then there’s good reason to brace for economic malaise. Oddly enough, Democratic opponents could politically benefit if such events were to occur. By claiming that Trump is fully responsible for the stock market’s highs and lows, they’re in good position to criticize his boastfulness and hypocritical statements, holding him accountable when he likely refuses to acknowledge future market slumps.

-Jordan Wolken

Trump's Electronics Ban

On March 21st, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a factsheet unveiling an electronics ban affecting 8 predominantly-Muslim countries and 9 airlines with American-bound routes. Effective until October 14th, any US-bound flights from Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, must store all electronics larger than a smartphone in the cargo-hold. Subsequent DHS statements cited this policy was in response to new intelligence that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was making progress hiding bombs within computer batteries, along with previous incidents such as Russia’s Metrojet 9268’s explosion over Sinai (2015) and the attempted downing of Somali Daallo Airlines 159 with a laptop bomb (2016). Whether this policy will be effective in preventing such attacks in the United States remains to be seen. 

Bruce Schneier, security technologist and lecturer at Harvard University believes the electronics ban can help prevent attacks, such as the Daallo Airlines laptop explosion, noting “Forcing it (the bomb) in the plane’s hold would make it much harder to detonate, since the terrorist has to design an automatic mechanism rather than doing it manually.” However, the Metrojet explosion in Egypt is believed to have been taken down by a bomb in the cargo hold. And if this policy is truly designed to stop terrorists from detonating laptop bombs on US routes, then why is it so easy to circumvent? Terrorism is stateless, and with ISIS worth nearly $2 billion and Al-Qaeda worth $150 million, one would think these organizations could afford to fly their laptop bombs from countries not included in the ban, like war-torn Yemen. So if this policy doesn’t prevent terrorist attacks and is easily circumvented, then what exactly does it do? 

A Bit of Background:  Open Skies Dispute

The big three US carriers (American, Delta, and United) have taken issue with state-owned Gulf carriers Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad for receiving subsidies from their governments.  According to the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, the fact that Gulf carriers are receiving approximately $52 Billion in a variety of subsidies violates the Open Skies agreement that allows Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad to fly into American Airspace. The three American companies have lobbied both the Obama Administration and now the Trump Administration to take action to “level the playing field.” But why are American, Delta, and United targeting the Gulf Carriers in particular?  Italy’s Alitalia makes perennial losses, only surviving because of heavy subsidies from the Italian government. Delta partly owns China Eastern which received $865 million in subsidies, and United partners with Air China which received $162 million from the Chinese government.  Even Delta is lobbying to receive fuel subsidies from the taxpayers of Georgia. It appears that American carriers are pro-subsidization until it holds them back from more profit, and this is illustrated by looking at the ever-increasing market share of the Gulf airlines. 

Looking at the market shares on each of those routes, it becomes clear that a large portion of the Gulf carriers’ growth can be seen in international departures from America. As the Gulf three begin to capture a larger share of the international market, they’ve dramatically increased the number of seats flown into America, as shown below. And they continue to grow, as Emirates gained its 12th American stop earlier this year, and Qatar Airways will reach its 11th American stop in 2018 when they begin flying to Las Vegas. According to the American big three, this presents problems as the Gulf airlines are able to flood the American market drastically increasing supply and dropping prices as a result. Good for customers, bad for corporate profits.  

Moving back to the electronics ban, the Trump Administration’s roll out of an electronic ban was followed by the United Kingdom rolling out their own ban. A couple specifics about the UK ban were slightly different, however.  First, the United Kingdom’s ban affects UK airlines, while the American ban does not directly affect any American airlines. Secondly, and very interestingly, the United Kingdom ban doesn’t include Qatar or UAE, the epicenter of the airline subsidy debate. The two administrations shared intelligence and collaborated in crafting the policy, yet they still rolled out their bans to include different countries. The disconnect is very disconcerting because if these policies are truly based on security then it would behoove both administrations to be on the same page and communicate effectively about their reasoning for why each nation was on the list. The fact that allies such as the United States and the United Kingdom cannot agree on a single list either points to incompetency or different motives from each administration. As the UK ban affects UK based airlines, their ban is less likely to be an economic chess move and more likely to be a security policy. With the US ban, their nation choice with the background of the Open Skies dispute, the Trump administration’s ban is much more likely to be an economic move over the UK’s. So, if this is a chess move, what is it designed to do and how is it effective?   

How Does This Hurt Gulf Carriers?

It remains to be seen as to how large the economic impact will be on the Gulf carriers. However, this could consolidate the losses that the Gulf airlines sustained after the Muslim travel ban. Although the previous ban is being held up in American courts, Emirates alone experienced a 35% drop in American-bound bookings. This electronic ban does more than just consolidate those losses, however. Costs could rise because of added security measures and possible delays in the event that passengers mistakenly take their electronics to the cabin.  More substantially, the Gulf three are likely see a drop in business passengers who would typically travel through the Gulf to reach their American destinations. A key component of the Gulf big three’s growth is their central location, long range aircraft, and luxurious business and first class cabins, which can earn loyal business travelers. But these flights can often be too long for business travelers to be offline and unproductive. Furthermore, business travelers with sensitive information on their electronic devices fear checking laptops into cargo-holds could lead to stolen information. In fact, some corporations have policies prohibiting the checking of electronics, and as such, they are changing to unaffected carriers, which can be less direct, but much more safe and productive. And although this policy won’t unflood the US aviation market with seats, it hits the Gulf three right with their key constituency of business flyers. 

American Protectionism

The electronics ban is clearly ineffective in fighting terrorism, but quite effective at targeting the pockets of Gulf airlines. From top to bottom, this seems like a protectionist policy that was designed with the consultation of big airline industry leaders when they met with Trump just a month prior to the ban’s rollout. Although this may not create lasting financial uncertainty, it is hitting at the Gulf airlines’ highest paying passengers while increasing security costs for them in Qatar and the UAE. As the rollout was scrutinized by security personnel, it was a popular narrative to think the administration missed their target. However when we look into alternative options for the administration to protect United, Delta, and American, none are an improvement on this policy. Blocking the Gulf big three from American airspace would cause a rise in prices on the American consumer and it’s unlikely that UAE and Qatar would stop subsidizing their airlines. This policy is as discreet as it gets for an administration seeking protection for their airlines. So even when the Trump administration cites security when questioned about their policy, it’s useful to investigate what its policy truly accomplishes, because more so than most administrations, its actions speak much louder than its words.    

-Omar Naguib

Transnational Anti-Asian Violence & the Model Minority

Liu Shaoyo was a 56-year-old Chinese national killed in his home on March 26, 2017 by police responding to a suspected domestic dispute call. While the French police claim that Mr. Liu was shot as an act of "legitimate defense" against "an assailant with scissors," Liu’s family told French media that he had done nothing more than open the door holding a pair of scissors he had been using to prepare fish. In response, France’s Asian and Chinese communities have taken to the streets in protest, leaving three police officers injured and at least 35 people detained. This most recent incident of anti-Asian violence highlights a long-existing insecurity among the French Chinese, reminiscent of the death of Zhang Chaolin--a 49-year-old tailor and father-of-two who died after being attacked by three teenagers in 2016. It also comes on the heels of the rising number of prominent hate crime cases in the United States.

France, undeniably, is a multi-ethnic and multicultural country. To address the increasing diversity, the French government utilizes a “color-blind” model of public policy that specifically bans the collection and computerized storage of race-based data. As a result, racial and ethnic censuses have been banned by the French government since 1978, resulting in a lack of data on racially-motivated hate crimes. For France’s Chinese community, the largest ethnic-Chinese diaspora in Europe, the lack of race-based data contributes to the rising frustration and anger against the state, which many claim have failed to protect them and their businesses.

France’s history with East-to-West migration may play a role in this increasing divide between more established migrant communities and ‘newer’ residents. France was the first Western country in which Vietnamese migrants settled due to French imperial rule over Indochina from 1885 to 1954. This led to the establishment of Vietnamese French and Southeast Asian communities that predate that of Chinese and other East Asian migrants. Unlike the Vietnamese diaspora in North America or Australia, the French Vietnamese and French Laotians are regarded as model minorities by media and politics due to a greater degree of assimilation as well as better cultural, historical, and linguistic knowledge of the host country. This starkly contrasts with the reported experiences of the French Chinese, who increasingly fear the looting of their businesses and brutalization of their bodies. The fear of mistreatment and outright anti-Asian violence exists among various Asian diasporic communities in other Western states like the United States and the United Kingdom. Yet, the lived experiences of ethnic-Asians drastically differ depending on the state, sometimes in such a fundamental sense that the notion of “Asian-ness” does not even refer to the same demographic.

According to the U.S Census Bureau in 2010, Asian Americans make up 5.6 percent of the total American population, with the largest ethnic groups represented being Chinese (3.79 million), Filipino (3.41 million), Indian (3.18 million), Vietnamese (1.73 million), Korean (1.7 million), and Japanese (1.3 million). Current data also indicates that Asian Americans have the highest household income and educational attainment of all minority groups.

Yet, when disaggregated, this same data also shows that “success,” as defined by the two previously mentioned indicators, is concentrated among more established East Asians, particularly Chinese, Japanese and Korean Americans. South and Southeast Asians, in contrast, are likely to face color-based discrimination and are often confused with Arab and other Middle Eastern Americans. This was the case for Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Harnish Patel, Indian nationals who were killed in March 2017 by racially-motivated hate crime shootings. Even David Dao, a 69-year-old Vietnamese American who was brutally dragged from a United Airlines flight by airport security personnel, was initially thought to be Chinese American. America’s predominantly East Asian understanding of Asia also stems from its experience with East-to-West migration, where many early Chinese immigrants worked as laborers on the First Transcontinental Railroad between 1863 and 1869. Memories from the bombing of Pearl Harbor, World War Two, and the unlawful internment of Japanese Americans have left an impressionable mark on the American psyche.

The opposite seems to be the case in the United Kingdom, where Asian identity is more closely associated to that of South Asia. Migration from Asia to Britain has roots in the East India Company, the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947, and the subsequent independence of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka from colonial rule. For these historical reasons, 4.9 percent of the total population are South Asian (excluding other Asian groups) while the British Chinese only make up 0.7% of the population. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the word "Asian" or "British Asian" when describing people typically refers to individuals of South Asian origin. Given these historical and demographic circumstances, the British Chinese share similar fears and frustrations with the French Chinese. According to research in 2009 by Durham University professor Gary Craig, the Chinese population in the U.K. experiences "perhaps even higher levels of racial violence or harassment than those experienced by any other minority group" but that the true extent to their victimization is often overlooked because victims were unwilling to report it. In a following report published in 2013 by the British Chinese Project, almost half of 520 survey respondents stated they "did not trust the police to deal effectively with their case". All of this is exacerbated by the fact that even if all incidents were reported to police, ‘Chinese’ ethnicity is put into the category of ‘other’ in when it comes to data collection.

Because Asian communities in Western states typically make up no more than 5% of the total population, diversity within the group is often overlooked. The model minority label relies on the aggregation of racially-neutral success indicators like higher education and household income. However, in policy context, salient issues like police violence and hate crimes are rooted in ethnicity and a color-blind approach that fails to remedy the historical disadvantages faced by certain marginalized migrant and immigrant communities. Western countries with Asian diasporic communities naturally have different relations with its Asian citizens. However, the artificial pitting of established minority communities against the new migrant workers and immigrants occurs across borders and contributes to the sentiment that anti-Asian violence is trending.

The first step towards addressing these subversive issues is through data. Institutional solutions like more comprehensive data collection process and data disaggregation can help reveal how pervasive incidents involving anti-Asian sentiments are on a transnational scale. Similar to how France does not collect race-based statistics, the United States has neither a dataset nor an apparatus in place that can report national hate crime trends. While local authorities are in a much better position to document discriminatory hate crimes and violence, not all communities see such as a priority.

We must actively question and challenge the narrative that insufficient data on a particular issue indicates a non-issue, especially in the context of racially-motivated violence. The deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and many more unarmed Black men and women, the blatant profiling of and discrimination against Muslim Americans, and the disregard of undocumented immigrants have shown that law enforcement in the United States will not make race-conscious institutional changes until public scrutiny is applied and malpractice is exposed. Most of these re-structural efforts have been led by the black and brown community, which needs to be acknowledged and contributed to by Asian communities. Asian immigrants who enjoy greater degrees of assimilation and model minority status must remember that their counterparts in other countries may not receive the same safety from police violence, and that racial-neutral success indicators will never be enough to overcome the racism and discrimination.

-Samuel Kim

Why China Hasn't Done More to Rein in North Korea

On April 6, 2017, China’s President Xi Jinping and President Trump met for the first time to discuss trade tensions, North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and other issues. After the two-day presidential summit at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, the two leaders announced a 100-day plan to improve strained trade relations and boost cooperation between the rival nations. However, it appears that Trump and Xi were unable to agree on a clear plan of action for North Korea.

The Trump administration’s unexpected military strike in Syria—launched on the summit’s first day—highlighted a significant difference between U.S. and Chinese foreign policy. Trump entered the first meeting with the Chinese leader convinced that China could simply rein in North Korea and the threat posed by the country’s nuclear program. Of course, North Korea’s relationship with China, its main international backer, is not so simple. While Trump has threatened to take military action against North Korea, China urges the U.S. to refrain from making a preemptive strike. China’s goal is to maintain a Korean peninsula that is simultaneously split yet stable, which has become increasingly difficult as U.S. and North Korean relations continue to be tense. U.S. or North Korean aggression will inevitably lead to conflict in China’s backyard. “If a war occurs, the result is a situation in which everybody loses and there can be no winner,” Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said, according to Xinhua, China’s official news agency. “It is not the one who espouses harsher rhetoric or raises a bigger fist that will win.”

One day before the U.S.-China summit, Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, ordered another ballistic-missile test, displaying his capacity and willingness to cause trouble in the region while ensuring North Korea’s importance on the summit agenda. Although China wants the Korean peninsula to be free of nuclear weapons, the North has significantly expanded its weapons program. The medium-range missile test on April 5 marked the seventh missile test of the year. China could not possibly benefit from having an aggressive, nuclear-armed, and dangerously unpredictable neighbor, which begs the question: Why doesn’t China do more to discourage this behavior?

In reality, China has already responded to the rise in North Korean aggression. It agreed to abide by the most recent round of United Nations economic sanctions on North Korea and, in February, suspended its purchases of North Korean coal—the largest source of foreign exchange for the isolated country—for the remainder of the year. Xi also blames Kim for the February assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, who had close ties to China and lived in Macau under Chinese protection. However, in spite of its efforts, China still appears to be taking a passive stance because Chinese policy changes have been slight in comparison to the dramatic shifts in American policy toward North Korea.

“If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will,” Trump recently stated in an interview with the Financial Times. For the U.S., the threat of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of hitting California is proving to be a game-changer. As North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles programs make more significant and noticeable developments, the Trump administration may be pressured to take an even greater hawkish stance toward the North. Increased U.S. presence in East Asia will be a nuisance to the Chinese government.

Even though China continues to discourage unilateral U.S. action, it seems unlikely to make radical policy changes to prevent it. This decision is also not without reason. China has backed, and will back, the North Korean regime because it does not want a unified Korean peninsula, especially if it becomes a single, stable, larger American ally on its border. The collapse of the North may also lead to a massive North Korean exodus into China’s northeastern provinces, subjecting those economically weaker regions to increased instability.

While these reasons have justified China’s support of North Korea since the 1950s, recent developments have contributed to China’s resolve:

1.     While the North’s weapons program has ramped up, North Korean missiles are not—for the moment—pointed at China. If China breaks tradition and adopts a more aggressive stance against North Korea, China’s protégé could become an unpredictable enemy.

2.     China does not perceive a North Korean ICBM as a serious threat, at least not to the extent that the U.S. does. Currently, there is no evidence that North Korea can place a nuclear warhead on an ICBM and reliably hit any part of the U.S.

3.     China is concerned about South Korea’s plans to deploy a U.S. anti-missile system, known as the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). While the U.S. and South Korea have officially assured that the missiles are to protect against a North Korean strike, China worries that it is really aimed at its own missiles.

Consequently, China continues to align itself with the North against the South. Perhaps China is more concerned with other countries’ reaction to North Korean hostility than the hostility itself.

Policy toward North Korea continues to test diplomatic relations between China and the U.S. The threat of unilateral American action is a grave concern to the Chinese government. Perhaps the Trump administration’s airstrike in Syria was meant to kill two birds with one stone: project strength and send a message to China. The U.S. is still entertaining a military option to deal with North Korea, which would undoubtedly lead to war on the Korean peninsula. A lack of coordination could also result in a decision by South Korea and Japan to develop their own nuclear weapons. Suddenly, denuclearization of the Korean peninsula can quickly become proliferation, instability, or war.

- Patrick Lin

Marketplace Activism

Today, engagement in the marketplace is inevitable and involuntary. The transactions of day-to-day life are mostly unconscious; it’s easy for individual purchases and economic interactions to remain individual and equally easy for how our monetary habits shape the greater economic atmosphere of the country to get lost in the quotidian nature of materialism.

Yet, the recent presidential election has pushed the connection between the individual and the aggregate to the forefront of political activism. Many current protests are organized around exercising purchasing power or, more often, withholding purchasing power in order to make a political statement. This trend of moving protest into the marketplace, in a way of replacing political activism with consumer activism, has deep historical roots. And while asserting purchasing power as political power has been an effective strategy in the past, its growing prevalence today raises questions about the effectiveness of our democracy and the place of protest in future political narratives.

Presumably the United States offers equal political power to everyone. We know that this was not always the case. Minorities remained disenfranchised for over a hundred years after the inception of this country. Even after suffrage was granted on paper, subsequent voting laws made sure that the ability to cast a vote was no sure thing. Since actual political avenues were unavailable to minorities, the marketplace was the only realm in which these groups could exercise any power. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the consumer rights activism before that utilized minority groups’ importance in the economy as a tool to manipulate conditions where they were otherwise unable to do so. When it came to consumer protection, a cause mostly taken up by women, women recognized that their power was largely confined to consumption and consumerism. Controlling the “purse strings” of the household gave them the ability to change how consumption was viewed in the eyes of the United States government: the importance of consumption to America’s maintenance of the wartime home front, like strict adherence to the Office of Price Administration (OPA) “Anti-Inflation Shopping List”, gave women more political power as they remained the ones the most purchasing power. When housewives refused to shop at certain stores, their will was felt more strongly than through a traditional protest. The Civil Rights Movement encouraged this type of peaceful activism throughout the 1950s, 60s, and beyond. Sit-in protests denied profit to stores that refused to serve or hire African Americans. The most notable may have been the boycotts of entire cities’ transportation systems. Bus boycotts that lasted for over a year helped, in many cases, ensure at least partial adherence to demands. 

This idea of purchasing power as a legitimizing power for the otherwise disenfranchised lurks behind many modern political arguments. For example, there exists a justification of undocumented immigrants' rights to live and work in the United States based off of the importance of their economic power in the US economy. These arguments push the fact that undocumented immigrants stimulate the country’s economy and pay billions of dollars in taxes every year (Deporting any large percentage of these immigrants would cost the country a group of people who put most of their money back into the economy. While these arguments exist in contrast to conservative voices that claim the opposite and call for stricter immigration policies, they use logic that harkens back to this earlier era of activism in which minorities found ways to work around their systematic exclusion from political arenas and make their voices heard.

More recent activism echoes this. The “Delete Uber” protest that took place after President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration showed how purchasing power remains inherently political. Deleting the Uber app in protest of the company’s strike-breaking actions and the CEO’s presence on Trump’s advisory board is punishing the company, yes, but also makes the act of hailing an Uber inherently political. When a person posts a video of themselves deleting the app, they are making a political statement by withholding their purchasing power. Though Uber is not directly related to the Trump administration, this becomes a statement of disapproval of the administration's actions.

This kind of activism exists outside of the left as well. The boycotts of Starbucks and Target in response to “liberal” policies are similar to the “Delete Uber” protest. When Starbucks vowed to hire 10,000 refugees over the next 5 years, the response from conservatives was overwhelmingly negative. Target, reaching out to minority customers with multiple inclusive policies, including allowing transgender customers and employees to use the bathrooms of their choice, sparked a similar response. A massive boycott followed. Neither Target nor Starbucks backed down from their policies, but it seems that these types of protests and boycotts are not necessarily intended to only immediately punish the companies being protested. Rather, they also serve the purpose of discouraging other companies from adopting similar policies or taking similar political stances. It is well documented that this activism works, to some extent. But it has been half a decade since its peak. On the face of things, the context is not the same as it was then, which changes the way that the concept either succeeds or fails.

Consumer activism brings up two questions: how political can companies really be, and what does it say about our country’s political process that the marketplace has become a more common arena for political protest than legitimate political avenues?

More and more companies are taking political stances. This really does affect who purchases their products. But I question whether or not these political stances are genuine, or just taken because companies recognize how efficient this manipulation of purchasing power is. “Corporate social responsibility” gives the illusion of corporate activism, and consumers demand this: according to Harvard Business School, “38% of Americans believe CEOs have a responsibility to speak out on controversial issues, as long as they directly apply to the company’s business”.

 But any type of corporate activism is often an illusion in itself. The recent controversial Super Bowl advertisement put out by 84 Lumber demonstrates this (The ad followed a mother and her daughter travelling across Mexico to cross the border into the United States, only to find a wall, not unlike the wall proposed by President Trump to deter illegal immigration. When they cross through the wall and a slogan about opportunity follows, the viewer is given the impression that 84 Lumber supports immigration and has a negative view of Trump’s wall proposal. This is certainly how the ad was most commonly interpreted. Many Trump supporters called for a boycott of the company, while others thanked 84 Lumber for “being on the right side of history” (). Not only does this boycott demonstrate the consumer activism detailed above, but it also demonstrates some of the issues found within it. Boycotting 84 Lumber will not help the wall be built. Supporting the company will not in any way deter its construction. It would not do so even if the mainstream interpretations of the ad were correct- the company’s CEO Maggie Hardy Magerko herself supports Trump and his border wall. If 84 Lumber had in fact been taking a hard stance against the wall or Trump, the money that went into making the almost five-minute-long advertisement would have been much more effective if it had been donated to a myriad of organizations fighting the policies of the Trump administration in constructive ways. 

Given that the legitimacy of a company’s political stances is questionable, why do many feel that extending or withholding support for a company is a more effective mode of activism than other, more direct ways? By replacing political activism with consumer activism, are we exchanging our political agency for greater power of consumption? Engaging with the marketplace more than with our political system makes our government less relevant, perhaps encouraging disengagement with the political process. Our generation is vocal in its desire to enact change, but this may not be the way to go about doing it. A recent focus on more direct activism is a step in the right direction: calling your representatives, educating your peers, or donating to organizations. Disillusionment with our country’s political process is most likely one of the reasons behind the recent influx of consumer-based activism in the marketplace, but we cannot fix the structures of our political system that cause the systematic removal of citizens from political power if we work outside of the system. So while, in some cases, withholding support from a company can make a valuable political statement, activists cannot and should not stop there. Protests should move beyond the marketplace in order to be effective and worthwhile.

Why We Need to Reform H1-B Visas

This January Congress’s House Judiciary Committee began reviewing a bill that would require employers to pay foreign, high-skilled temporary workers at least $100,000 a year, a nearly 67% increase from the current H1-B minimum wage of $60,000 a year. Formally known as the “Protect and Grow American Jobs Act,” the bill is intended to index the new minimum wage to inflation and encourage American firms to hire more American workers. Even though President Trump repeatedly alleged that companies are exploiting H1-B Visas to hire cheap entry-level foreign workers, his allegations are not new. Politicians have been echoing President Trump’s claims for years, and there is much merit behind their allegations.

Due to the H1-B Visa’s low minimum wage requirement it is easier for companies to overlook American workers for foreign workers, who may be more tolerant of lower pay. This argument is supported by the H1-B’s usage of a lottery system, which does not guarantee the best foreign workers will always be chosen. To explain the H1-B lottery system in detail, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) sets a quota for 65,000 Regular and 20,000 Masters H1-B Visa holders. The number of H1-B applications USCIS receives usually exceeds the quota; for example in 2017, USCIS received nearly 236,000 applications. If there are more than 20,000 applications specifically for the Masters quota, they run a computer generated algorithm to randomly select 20,000 applicants. The remaining Masters applicants are put into the pool for the regular H1-B Visa pool. A computer algorithm then screens the remaining applications to fill the 65,000 regular H1-B Visa quota. Worryingly, nobody besides the USCIS knows the methodology behind the algorithm or how effective this algorithm is in choosing the best applicants. This means outstanding applicants will get crowded out by greater numbers of less qualified applicants. There are IT companies like Infosys and Cognizant which send in thousands of applications for several hundredpeople, so their probability of being chosen increases.

 It is important to note the distinction between hiring foreign workers with high tech skills and hiring foreign workers as guest workers, who will most likely be less skilled and fill in for more mundane jobs. One of the most common arguments for H1-B Visas is America’s supposed lack of STEM workers. This argument does not appear to be true, as the Economic Policy Institute’s studies show Programmers, Computers, and IT workers’ salaries have stayed stagnant since the start of the 21st century. Even though their unemployment numbers have sharply declined, it means we’re generating enough qualified students for jobs, importing enough foreign workers, or a combination of both. Even though the fall in tech workers’ unemployment rates is attributable to the latter option, the inflow of guest workers makes up for half of all IT hires each year and nearly 66 percent of new, under-30 IT workers are foreign. Looking back at the H1-B Visa’s minimum wage of $60,000, it is no surprise IT Jobs’ salaries have been stagnant for nearly a decade.

In essence, the H1-B Visa’s problems are an expected byproduct of market forces. When more guest workers take domestic workers’ jobs, the domestic workers will find jobs in other fields. Certainly, more and more jobs utilize math, science and technology, but domestic workers are increasingly left out of jobs that fully maximize their STEM education. The Brookings Institute affirmed these conclusions in 2013, as it discovered nearly 25 percent of H1-B Visa jobs only required an associate’s degree. This means current US workers could train for these jobs at little cost and time. Furthermore, nearly 80 to 85 percent of all back-office programming jobs are filled by H1-B guest workers. These jobs often are not innovative, with most H1-B Visa employers producing little to no patents. One of the largest arguments for H1-B Visas is hiring the best foreign talent to drive American innovation. First of all, if US companies want to hire the best foreign talent they must also be willing to pay higher salaries, as skilled IT workers are in high demand internationally. The current H1-B Visa minimum wage discourages American companies from paying foreign workers more. Furthermore, if we do not reform our H1-B Visas, we will fail to accommodate America’s best STEM workers and graduates. Instead they will flock to well paying non-STEM jobs that still utilize STEM skills, such as Data Analytics or even manufacturing jobs.

In essence, America produces plenty of STEM workers to fill employers’ needs. Especially with universities’ recent push to train more STEM graduates and our economy’s transition to a technology, data-driven market, more and more STEM majors will be looking for jobs. If we keep hiring foreign workers under the H1-B Visa, America’s technological innovations will decrease and America’s STEM talent will find work elsewhere, whether it be in other job fields or in other countries like Germany, which actively promote the need for foreign and domestic scientists and IT specialists. H1-B Visas also promote employers’ unrealistic expectations and unnecessary strategic posturing, harming both the employer and potential hirees. As of now, nearly 11.4 million STEM degree holders work in non-STEM jobs, even though nearly all STEM vacancies - approximately 277,000 annually - could be filled by 350,000 STEM Bachelor's, Master's, and PhD graduates US universities produce every year. As less employers are willing to invest time training their employees and are increasingly willing to utilize cheaper foreign workers over American talent, H1-B Visas will cause a long-term decline in America’s technological dominance.

- Daniel Hyun

The Shortcomings of Satire in the Trump Era

Comedians capitalized on political satire this election cycle, and it was hilarious. Alec Baldwin’s impersonation of Donald Trump put Saturday Night Live in the spotlight. Stephen Colbert found his niche on the Late Show with his coverage of the election, and countless other comedians like Samantha Bee, Trevor Noah, and Seth Meyers satirized politics. The intersection of comedy and satire lends itself perfectly to the current political climate as scandal after scandal comes out of Washington. It continues to sustain post-election TV ratings, and the number of comedians covering current events is still growing. These shows entertain audiences, but they don’t necessarily provoke critical thought about policies or make compelling critiques of politicians. That’s not necessarily a problem. Some networks simply goof on politics for comedic material and are not trying to make political statements, but the popularization of Trump impersonations raises questions about the role of satire in the Trump era.

Comedians tend to focus on personality traits and mannerisms rather than issues. Traditional satire relies on the exaggeration of personalities or ideas to reveal absurdities. The issue, unfortunately, is that Trump’s entire campaign and his presidency is already the epitome of absurd. Take Baldwin’s impersonation of Trump. It’s funny to watch him mock Trump’s strange speech patterns and unusual hand gestures, but Baldwin does not successfully satirize Trump. His impersonation is so similar to the real thing that a newspaper in the Dominican Republic mistook a picture of Baldwin’s impersonation for Trump. It is difficult to find a way to exaggerate his personality to the point of real satire. The audience is entertained, but impersonations of Trump don’t have the element of absurdity that reveals new contradictions or insights into Trump. Impersonations and mockery of Trump’s personality cannot say more than he has already tweeted. It is great comedy, but it is not real satire, because it does not challenge the viewer to think beyond his or her preconceptions.

Critiques of politician’s personalities are safe, because it is easy to tap into viewers’ previous knowledge of politicians to make a joke. Comedy is saturated with jokes about news and politicians, but little of it makes a lasting impact. The more comedians focus on personality, the less they talk about real issues and policies. It is harder to make clever impactful critiques about Trump’s tax plan, than it is to laugh at his bizarre hair or orange skin. Highlighting Trump’s buffoonery is valuable, but it falls short of providing a real critique of issues. Comedians also need to satirize his policies if they intend to make a compelling argument against Trump’s presidency.

Popular political satire does not provide a successful critique of Donald Trump because comedians are not willing to make viewers uncomfortable. Comedians miss the element of dark humor that makes satire affective. A great example of good satire is Tom Lehrer’s satirical song “Send the Marines”1. Written in ‘65 during the Vietnam War, “Send the Marines” critiques US military intervention abroad:

For might makes right, until they see the light,

They’ve got to be protected, all their rights respected,

‘Till someone we like can be elected.

Members of the corps, all hate the thought of war

They’d rather kill them off by peaceful means.

He perfectly described the US government’s hypocrisy of supporting regimes for political expediency rather than actual concern for human rights. Lehrer did not hold back. There is no leniency for politicians who send armed troops abroad in the name of protecting the status quo. Most importantly, he wrote this song at a time when the Vietnam was still very popular. In 1965, only 24% of Americans  believed the US made a mistake by sending troops to Vietnam. In writing this song, he took a risk by confronting Americans with their own hypocrisy. It is easy to critique something that is widely unpopular, but Lehrer was willing to take a meaningful and controversial stance on a popular war. This satire is also successful because it is not focused on one actor. Lehrer briefly mentions President Lyndon B. Johnson in the introduction to the song, but the song is not about Johnson. This is not for lack of material because Johnson was notoriously crass. The result of this is an unforgiving critique of anyone involved in hawkish military intervention. There is no room for a scapegoat because the song satirizes anyone who supports the armed military intervention in a meaningless war. It implicates the people who support the war, the key figures in policy making, and the main stage politicians like Johnson.

Current comedians provide comic relief to Americans, which also affords citizens a certain amount of complacency by reconfirming our preconceptions. Political satire needs to move away from impersonations of politicians and criticisms of mannerisms. A lot of shows do this already, but there needs to be a significant shift in the ratio of Trump impersonations to actual critiques of policies. Satire needs fewer hair jokes and more criticism of issues that affect people. Our judgement of the quality of policy making should not rely on who is making the policy. Focusing on the personalities of people like Trump and Spicer sets the bar for “doing a good” very low. We cannot reward politicians for abstaining from crazy tweeting for a week. Doing the bare minimum is exactly that: the bare minimum.

Furthermore, exaggeration of personalities is not a convincing argument for supporters to change their minds. Trump’s personality attracted many voters, or, conversely, many voters voted for him in spite of his personality. A slightly dramatized version of Trump is not an effective argument for people who supported him. Satire needs to present a more compelling argument that is based on critiques of policies and resist the temptation of mocking politicians’ mannerisms.

Networks that air political satire may have polarized viewers, but there is still an opportunity to reach a wider audience. The people who watch Trump impersonations are mostly liberal, and they probably do not need to be persuaded. For these viewers, political satire provides relief from the anxieties of a Trump presidency. Skits are tailored to a liberal audience, but late shows and comedians have the potential to reach non-liberal viewers as well. If SNL focused more energy on mocking horrible policies that affect Trump supporters, they would retain their liberal audience while also convincing voters. Political satire has the potential to be an effective critic of a Trump presidency and a source of entertainment and relief for liberals. As the market for political satire expands, there is a lot of room for experimentation, so please, stop with the Trump impersonations, and let’s see some real satire.

-Jessica Steele

 1. Lehrer, Tom(1965). Send the Marines. That Was the Year That Was [Live Album]. (1965). San Francisco: Reprise/Warner Bros. Records.

Further reading:

Donald Trump Is a Conundrum for Political Comedy (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/arts/television/donald-trump-is-a-conundrum-for-political-comedy.html?_r=0)

Saturday Night Live and the Limits of Trump Mockery (http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/saturday-night-live-and-the-limits-of-trump-mockery)

Sinking Giggling into the Sea (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea)

Did Karl Marx Foresee Trump's Rise?

Most mainstream American and European economists stopped studying Karl Marx when the Cold War ended in 1991. His denunciation of capitalism and proposed communist uprising proved too impractical for the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc to effectively execute. Even China’s economy shifted away from its communist tendencies over three decades ago, operating as more of a state-run capitalist system today. Yet with many of his ideas discredited decades ago, Marx’s Communist Manifesto is still the third most frequently assigned text at American universities, trumping household names like Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom. As I’ll explain, this may not be such a bad thing: despite most career economists and politicians disregarding Marxist theory, one of his ideas maintains significant relevance in today’s political climate.

In his 19th century heyday, Marx gained notoriety for his radical ideas about shifting labor and capital. Although disproved by others, his labor theory of value (LTV) ‒ the idea that a good’s value is contingent upon the number of human labor hours needed to produce it ‒ is still included in many economics textbooks. Despite its conceptual errors, understanding LTV is a requirement for foreseeing Marx’s five steps that lead to a capitalist system’s downfall. In Das Kapital, Marx proclaims that many companies begin to exchange human labor for machinery as they compete to increase their production capacity. Marx predicates this substitution on the LTV ‒ as a company’s production capacity increases, so too does the amount of labor needed to produce their goods. Eventually, with companies incentivized to minimize their costs and earn higher profits than their competitors, many begin exploiting workers by halting any wage increases, stretching their hours and speeding up their work pace. Yet because the supply of human labor is both limited (Marx channels his inner Malthus here) and less productive than machines, wealthy companies begin firing workers and automating their production process. With unemployment rising and the macroeconomy expanding its output, unsold goods are left toiling on store shelves and an endless cycle of poverty ensues. According to Marx, the unemployed now band together and form a ‘reserve army of labor’ to uproot the entire capitalist system in favor of a worker-led communist one. He excitingly describes this further in his infamous Communist Manifesto: 

 “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (Section 4 Paragraph 11)

Before totally disregarding Marx’s communist revolution as an idyllic fantasy, let’s take a step back and note the remarkable similarities between Marx’s reserve army and the United States’s own white working class. America, and much of the developed economy, is now in a peculiar and unfamiliar place. Emerging technology and factory automation threaten millions of low-wage unskilled workers across the country. Much of the Rust Belt, which once reflected a booming American manufacturing sector, now looks like an abandoned shell of itself. One Ball State University study estimates that 87% of the manufacturing job losses are a result of automation, rather than “bad” trade deals shifting jobs to lower-wage countries like Mexico or China. Yet despite thousands of recent factory closures and worker layoffs, aggregate manufacturing output is at a record high. Marx preempted this dichotomy. He recognized that increasingly efficient machines (or robots, in this case) would concentrate capital into a wealthy few, raise unemployment and expand total production. This economic scenario sets the stage for those unemployed workers to revolt, or in today’s context, demand political change.

Although I don’t believe the American capitalist system will be overtaken by angry unemployed workers, which is the inevitable next step in Marxist theory, I do believe that our political system has been temporarily hijacked by Donald Trump’s own minion of Marx’s reserve army. Trump, like Geert Wilders, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen and other European right-wing populists, owes his political support to newly unemployed working class citizens. He edged Hillary Clinton by 39% amongst white voters without college degrees, serving as further testament to his intentional courting of formerly employed factory workers. As the Washington Post points out, many of those voters helped him win Rust Belt states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin ‒ three states that hadn’t gone red since either 1984 or 1988. Is it a coincidence that Marx-esque unemployed factory workers are demanding a complete shift in Washington? Unhinged by job loss, political gridlock, and allegiance to big business (or capitalists, as Marx would argue), this reserve army undoubtedly helped fuel Trump’s November victory. What’s more, Marx may have brilliantly foreseen America’s current economic and political firestorm without even knowing it, nearly 150 years before anyone else.

So what’s next? In Marxist theory, the same group that elected Trump would eventually topple the entire political system and run it themselves. With Trump reneging on many of his campaign promises that wooed those voters in the first place, it’s not impossible to imagine a disgruntled reserve army rallying against Trump during the next four years. His favorability ratings are at historically low levels during only his first few months in office, and unless he can curb the emerging technology behind factory automation and job loss, his doomsday might be near. In other words, continuing the steamy rhetoric against bad trade deals might only get him so far.

- Jordan Wolken

Other Resources to Read:

 https://monthlyreview.org/2011/11/01/the-global-reserve-army-of-labor-and-the-new-imperialism

 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/us/education-the-mainstreaming-of-marxism-in-us-colleges.html

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/trump-cant-deliver-rust-belt-jobs-work-changed/

Arab Spring Progress Check

On March 2nd, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was acquitted on charges of killing protesters during the 18-day uprising that ended his rule, during which estimates claim nearly 900 people were killed and around 6,000 were injured. The decision was made in the Court of Cassation, Egypt’s highest court of criminal litigation, and as such, their decision is final. Egypt’s former dictator of 30 years is free to go, however, its most recently deposed president, Mohammed Morsi, had his sentence for killing protesters finalized to 20 years by the Court of Cassation in the middle of 2016. Although there may be distinct differences in Mubarak’s and Morsi’s cases, the disparity in sentences poses the question: After all the political turmoil and uprisings, did the Arab Spring bring any positive change to the affected Arab countries? Or are corruption and restrictions even more common place today than they were in December 2010, when Mohamed Bouazizi set the Middle East ablaze with his self-immolation?

To decipher whether the Arab Spring has progressed the region forward or pulled it backward, it will be important to take a closer look at five countries where regime change has occurred or has been attempted. As economic restrictions ignited the Arab Spring, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and Syria will be taken into account, utilizing the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom to investigate if the uprisings have met their goals. The pre-revolution rankings are included in the chart above, while the 2017 rankings can be found here.      

Egypt has endured much instability since the revolution against Mubarak’s rule in 2011.  On June 17th, 2012 Mohammed Morsi became the country’s first democratically elected president, however, he rarely acted very democratically. Less than half a year into his presidency, he granted himself sweeping authority and judicial immunity for his actions. The Egyptian people weren’t ready for another Mubarak and revolted against his power-grab and broken promises.  On June 3rd, 2013, the military, commanded by Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, removed President Morsi from power and placed him under house arrest. Al-Sisi left the Egyptian military to run for the presidency and was elected on May 28th, 2014. Since then, there has been a bevy of human rights abuses and restrictions of freedoms. Journalists that criticize the government are jailed, anti-government protests are banned, and detainees are typically tortured. Egypt’s economic freedom score has dropped significantly from the 85th most free to the 144th most free.  In response to criticism of its human rights record, the Sisi administration frequently refers to the mantra: “Security before perfection”.  Protection from terrorism is understandably a priority, but an administration dedicated to human rights wouldn’t be utilizing such a phrase.

Libya is venturing into the dangerous waters of failed-statehood. Muammar Gaddafi ruled by exacerbating rivalries and with an iron fist. After the Libyan leader’s death, a power vacuum emerged, intensifying tensions between the rivalries he cultivated and resulting in multiple entities claiming to be the rightful government. As such, a country who led all African nations in GDP per capita and produced 1.6 million barrels of oil per day in 2009 has fallen into a civil war with three different governments and ISIS all vying for power. Libya was ranked 154th in the world in the Index of Economic Freedom prior to Gaddafi’s assassination, and is now unranked because of the governmental uncertainty and raging civil war.

Tunisia is considered the success story of the Arab Spring, but even they have had their challenges. After the Arab Spring began here in late 2010, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was ousted in January 2011, leading to a tumultuous year until elections were held in October of 2011. Though it has become largely democratic, problems persist.  Mohamed Bouazizi protested through self-immolation due to lack of economic freedoms, yet Tunisia’s economic freedom ranking has dropped from 84th in the world to 123rd, university graduates constitute nearly a third of the unemployment rate, and terrorism continues to hurt the country’s main industry of tourism. While the government has made a transition to a democratic system, lack of security and bleak employment prospects have led to Tunisia becoming a fertile recruiting ground for ISIS. In October of 2015, the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet won the Nobel Peace Prize for its “decisive contribution to building a pluralistic democracy in Tunisia, in the wake of the Jasmine Revolution in 2011”, and progress has been made towards the goal of becoming a democratic state. However, unemployment and lack of security continue to hold the nation back.    

Yemen is struggling through a civil war and divided country similar to that of the Libyan situation. After President Ali Abdullah Saleh resigned and transferred power to Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, the Yemeni regime has struggled with dissent from Houthi rebels, Al-Qaeda, and small pockets of ISIS. Yemeni territory is essentially divided into three parts between the Yemeni government, Al-Qaeda, and the Houthis. Making the conflict even more complex, the Yemeni Civil War has become a proxy war between Saudi Arabia supporting the Sunni government and Iran supporting the Shia Houthi rebels. In addition, the country is suffering a humanitarian crisis of malnutrition and lack of drinkable water.  Unfortunately, this is another example of a country that is trending backwards. Prior to the Arab Spring, Yemen ranked 125th in the world in economic freedom and is now unranked as a failed state. 

Syria is in the middle of a civil war that dwarfs the Lebanese Civil War in both casualties and intricacies.  In 2011, after President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces violently repressed protests, the protests grew in ferocity and soldiers defected from his army to bring about the main opposition force: The Free Syrian Army.  However, the Free Syrian Army was joined by other groups, like Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Al-Nusra Front), ISIS, and American-backed Kurdish forces. These anti-regime forces are all fighting against Assad, but he has held his ground and fought for six years.  The Syrian conflict has become a proxy war with the United States, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia supporting anti-regime rebels, while Iran and Russia support the Assad regime. With so many political actors in this conflict, should the Assad regime fall, Syria will be in for a dangerous power vacuum. Needless to say, economic freedoms are not of priority right now in Syria, and, as such, the country fell from 144th in the world to an unranked failed state in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedoms.

Looking back on each of these nations, it is difficult to be optimistic about where the Middle East is heading. Prior to the Arab Spring, each of the nations analyzed were ranked in Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. Six years of turmoil later, only two of the five nations are still ranked, in the index with Egypt dropping a dramatic 29 ranking spots and Tunisia dropping 14 spots respective of their 2011 economic freedom rankings.  Tunisia has reached its democratic goal but has dipped in security, Egypt has increased its security while dropping the ball on human rights and democracy, and Libya, Yemen, and Syria are all engulfed in civil wars. It is possible these countries’ respective progresses are being analyzed too soon. Libya, Yemen, and Syria could be envisioned as failed states, or envisioned as territories in progress of the democratic goals their citizens fought so hard for. Whichever perspective is taken, it is undeniable that the Middle East is a region in disarray. We are six years into the Arab Spring experiment and so far it doesn’t look promising.   

- Omar Naguib

Why H-1B Visa Workers Aren't Stealing U.S. Jobs

On April 3, 2017, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) started accepting H-1B petitions for Fiscal Year 2018. Each year, 85,000 highly coveted H-1B visas are processed (20,000 of which are reserved for master’s or doctoral degree holders). Last year, 236,000 foreign workers applied for the H-1B. It is likely that, just as it has in the past five consecutive years, USCIS will receive more than the 85,000 available H-1B visas in the first few days of April.

Historically, H-1B applicants could opt for “premium processing” of their visa, which allowed skilled workers to pay extra to expedite the visa approval process. On March 3, USCIS announced that it will remove this option on the same day it started accepting petitions.

In addition to the suspension of premium processing for H-1B visas, legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives calling for a new $130,000 minimum salary for H-1B visa holders, a dramatic increase from the current $60,000 minimum salary. This new salary cap effectively doubles the cost of hiring foreign skilled workers.

These waves of changes are being introduced to a visa program that has not changed substantively since the early 2000s. The H-1B was created in 1990 under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The non-immigrant visa allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in “specialty occupations,” which the regulation defines as requiring a “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge” as well as attainment of a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in the specific specialty as a minimum. For all intents and purposes, the H-1B was (and is) partial to foreign workers in STEM fields (though there is a curious exception for fashion models “of distinguished merit and ability”). In fact, roughly 99% of all H-1B visa workers have at least a Bachelor’s degree, while over half have advanced degrees.

These changes to the H-1B visa come at a time when protectionist and anti-globalization rhetoric has a strong foothold in American politics. Perhaps the most common criticism of the H-1B is that it is robbing Americans of their jobs. Critics assert that foreign workers are paid less than American workers, making foreign workers more desirable to U.S. companies. However, this critique is a mischaracterization of the U.S. labor market.

H-1B workers are not occupying the positions many of its critics are concerned with. While outsourcing certainly affects U.S. jobs, the jobs “taken” by traditional outsourcing tend to require less specialization, often called “unskilled” labor. It may be valid to accuse globalization for the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs (even though automation and artificial intelligence may be the real culprits), but H-1B workers are not filling these positions. H-1B visa holders typically end up at Silicon Valley tech firms or consulting firms, often filling computer programming and engineering positions.

Many H-1B critics also lament the job security of individuals at tech firms and consultancies. Some worry that these U.S. companies are taking advantage of the H-1B program, using it to hire cheap labor at the expense of equally qualified Americans. While this is a well-intentioned concern, it is misguided. The Bush administration introduced the H-1B in 1990 in an attempt to address the alarming STEM labor shortage. A 2015 study conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals a significant heterogeneity in the STEM labor market: although the academic sector is generally oversupplied, the government sector and private industry have a shortage of qualified talent in key areas. The fields experiencing the most severe shortages are engineering fields, particularly nuclear, aeronautical, software, and electrical engineering. These specialized STEM fields are the very areas many H-1B workers are filling. For instance, on average, the U.S. labor market demands approximately 120,000 new computer engineers per year. U.S. universities only produce one-third of that number, while the remaining two-thirds is satisfied by H-1B workers. The H-1B visa program is not hurting the U.S. economy or stealing U.S. jobs; in fact, H-1B workers are remedying labor shortages in fields that are at the frontier of U.S. innovation, allowing U.S. businesses to maintain their position as some of the most significant players in the global economy.

H-1B visa holders pay the same taxes on income as U.S. workers as well as the same social security, unemployment, and state taxes. These workers neither harm nor exploit the U.S. economy. In reality, these individuals are contributing to the American economy while addressing the labor shortages in important and specialized U.S. industries.

More can be done to address some of the shortcomings of the U.S. labor market. Many groups have been neglected as the country shifts its priorities toward service industries and technology-enabled production processes. However, placing the blame for these frictions on the H-1B visa program is not only problematic, but also dangerous and irresponsible, which, in turn, willharm the U.S. and jeopardize the nation’s reputation for innovation.

- Patrick Lin 

Reclaiming Democracy in South Korea

What had started with bizarre media headlines claiming that South Korea’s president was being controlled by a Rasputin-like shamanist cult figure is now a new socio-political movement that is sweeping across the country and catching the world’s attention in the process. Although frequently called “the Miracle on the Han River” for its unprecedented economic growth following the Korean War (1950-53), South Korea is still coming to terms with its rapid advancement. Economic and social disparities have become more and more apparent and only recently, democracy is being uprooted by the biggest scandal in modern Korean history.

President Park Geun-hye of the conservative Saenuri party, whose five-year term was scheduled to end in February 2018, faces her largest scandal involving a longtime friend and secret adviser, Choi Soon-sil. Numerous allegations are currently being investigated, such as the leaking of classified documents and/or state secrets concerning diplomacy and national security, unlawful involvement in major policy business, and unlawful awarding of government contracts. Park has suffered multiple scandals throughout her term, even before her election as president; for instance, public servants from National Intelligence Service (NIS) were accused of illicit online campaign activity in favor of Park leading up to the 2012 presidential elections. In November of 2015, anti-government protests erupted in response to Park’s business-friendly labour policies and decision to require use of state-issued history textbooks starting in 2017.

As of November 20th, Choi Soon-sil has been officially charged by prosecutors for intervening with state affairs (without a government position or security clearance) and coercing large business conglomerates like Samsung and Hyundai to donate tens of millions of dollars to personally-owned foundations and businesses.

South Korean history is no stranger to political corruption as a majority of the nation’s past eleven presidential administrations, irrespective of political party, have been tangled in some form of scandal. South Korean democracy has been precarious at best, alternating between periods of democratic and autocratic rule since its founding in 1948. Furthermore, South Koreans face the highest levels of income inequality in the Asia-Pacific region, with the heavy burden falling on the working class and young people. According to Michael Hurt, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, “Class division and increasing income inequality adds to a growing sense that the old promises of sacrificing, working hard and simply getting by based on one’s blood sweat and tears, is from a time that is no longer relevant.”

All of these frustrations, on top of this new presidential scandal, are the driving forces of what appears to be South Korea’s newest democratic revolution, uncannily resembling the numerous populist movements gaining prominence across Europe and the United States. What had started as candle light vigils evolved into one of the most effective demonstrations of public organization and political activism in South Korean history and the world. Six straight Saturdays of protest have occurred demanding Park’s immediate resignation thus far and are only increasing in momentum with the most recent rally drawing an estimated 2.3 million people (approximately 3% of the population. When put to scale, the 1982 anti-nuclear protests in the United States, the largest political demonstration in American history, are only estimated to be, at most, 1 million people.

It was uncertain whether this scandal could catalyze a political movement strong enough to amount to any tangible change. However, Park’s influence-peddling scandal marks a new low in what is considered politically reprehensible, with her approval ratings at 4 percent overall and zero percent among Koreans under 30 – the lowest for any sitting president. An editorial by The Chosun Ilbo, South Korea’s largest newspaper and an influential conservative voice, makes a clear distinction that this is “…no ordinary lame-duck phenomenon” but rather a “…complete collapse of a president's ability to run a government.”

After three separate apologetic statements from President Park, which only angered the Korean people further, the acceptance of a “timely” resignation (which may not occur until April) seems more and more unlikely as pressure from all sides increases on the Blue House. In the National Assembly, the three opposition parties-- Democratic Party of Korea, People's Party, and Justice Party—have agreed to push an impeachment motion through the National Assembly on December 9th, calling on undecided lawmakers of the ruling Saenuri Party to participate in the vote instead of waiting for her resignation. One day following last Saturday’s historic rally, a bloc of 29 lawmakers (including former party leader Kim Moo-sung and ex-floor leader Yoo Seong-min) announced their willingness to “do [their] utmost to pass the impeachment bill," regardless of whether Park announces her voluntary resignation or not.

Considering South Korea’s familiarity with corrupted intuitions and leaders unwilling to yield power – notably Park Chung-hee, military general and president from 1961 until his assassination in 1979, and late father to incumbent president Park’s – the populist fervor and empowered sense of political efficacy demonstrated by these million-strong marches marks a much needed departure from the status quo; a movement takes the responsibility upon itself to reclaim democracy. The hard work and resolve of ordinary individuals–not miracles–never goes to waste and is what pushes countries forward. When public outrage is organized and focused on bringing people together instead of apart, not even establishment politics or bureaucracy can slow down the change. Regardless of the outcome of Friday’s impeachment vote, the cracks in Korea’s democracy are now exposed for the world to see, a painful but necessary truth that must be reconciled in the process towards a more just government and equal economic opportunity.

-Samuel Kim

[UPDATE: On 9 December 2016, Park was impeached by the National Assembly by a vote of 234 for and 56 against (with seven invalid votes and two abstentions), suspending her presidential powers and duties. The impeachment was then upheld unanimously by the Constitutional Court on 10 March 2017, formally ending Park's presidency. The 19th South Korean presidential election is scheduled to be held on 9 May 2017.]

The Growing U.S. Partisanship on Israel

In 1948, United States President Harry. S Truman recognized the existence of the State of Israel as the Jewish State following Israel’s declaration of independence. Truman’s decision set a precedent for American support for Israel, positioning Israel to become the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East. However, the significant and enduring relationship between the U.S and Israel is entering a new phase in the face of controversial politics and policies surrounding the Israeli government, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Recent events and trends, including the Iran nuclear deal, President Donald Trump and his administration’s hardline pro-Israel stance, and the U.S. generational gap in relation to Israeli support, has undermined what once was close and supportive bipartisan support for Israel in American governmental affairs. As the American political left-wing has become less pro-Israel and the right-wing has assumed a stronger pro-Israel stance, views toward the Jewish State in the United States have transformed into a polarizing issue, one that has the potential for considerable global repercussions.

The Rightward Israeli Political Shift

The change in American political attitudes towards Israel directly coincides with the transfer of power from a left-wing to a right-wing Israeli party (For more background on the Israeli political process, please refer to this resource, and for more information on Israeli political parties, please refer to this resource). This shift in political ideology in Israel’s democracy began on November 4, 1995 with the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, a right-wing Israeli extremist. Since then, the right-wing factions of Israel, dissatisfied with Rabin for his “land-for-peace” stance towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rose to prominence in the Knesset, the Israeli government. Israeli public opinion has also swayed from Rabin’s ideology because of several key events.

From 2000-2005, the Second Intifada, which consisted of intensified violence between Israelis and Palestinians, especially the former’s military intervention and the latter’s many suicide bombings targeting Israeli citizens, reinforced the Israeli right’s protectionist beliefs, and the 2007 takeover of Gaza by the terrorist organization Hamas following Israel’s withdrawal from the territory two years prior was viewed similarly. Continued failed peace conversations, including the Camp David Summit in 2000, the Taba Summit in 2001, and the 2010 and 2013-2014 U.S.-sponsored direct talks also energized the political right in Israel. More recently, the Middle East’s ongoing instability, marked by the Arab Spring, Syrian Civil War, and the rise of ISIS, and the divided Palestinian leadership, which features the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Leadership Organization, and Hamas, have strengthened the political stature of the Israeli right.

These events, all of which occurred during a time in which there was no bona fide leader to fill Rabin’s place on the Israeli left, have spurned a political environment that has enabled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud Party to rise to power, serve three consecutive terms, and follow through with a conservative political agenda, headlined by the expansion of settlements into territories internationally recognized as Palestinian. Global liberal leaders, especially former U.S. President Barack Obama, have been angered by the Likud Party’s policies.

The Iran Nuclear Deal

In the face of a strong Israeli right, the build-up to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal, marks another crucial occurrence that sharply divided U.S. political parties and the American pro-Israel populace. On March 3, 2015, Netanyahu, the International leader to most staunchly oppose the Iran nuclear deal, caused an uproar in American Jewish communities when he addressed a joint session of U.S. Congress, during which he claimed to speak for the global Jewish population as he chastised the proposed deal with Iran. Furthermore, Netanyahu’s visit was not orchestrated by the Obama administration, the entity responsible for engineering the Iran nuclear deal. In response, many elected Democratic officials boycotted the Israeli Prime Minister’s address, drawing more partisan lines between America’s two dominant political parties.

Following Netanyahu’s address, a Gallup poll showed Netanyahu’s favorability rating among all Americans dropped while those who disapproved of him increased. This trend was mostly buoyed by registered Democrats or left-leaning Americans, whose favorable views towards Netanyahu plummeted while unfavorable views featured an increase. Registered Republicans and right-leaning Americans’ attitudes toward Netanyahu mostly remained stable, with a slight increase in favorability and a slight decrease in animosity towards the Israeli Prime Minister.

American pro-Israel advocacy groups, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and J Street, also expressed differences in opinion over the deal. AIPAC stood with Netanyahu who was joined by the American right-wing in opposition the agreement; lobbyists for AIPAC frequently met with representatives and staffers from congressional offices--400 times in the span of one week, in fact--and spent tens of millions of dollars to create a campaign called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, which launched attack ads against the deal. Contrarily, J Street firmly supported the deal, which was lauded by the American left-wing. J Street lobbying efforts were targeted atdifferent congressional offices 125 times and they spent $5 million towards advertising promoting the deal. Although J Street’s efforts paled in comparison to those of AIPAC’s, J Street and the American left-wing emerged victorious. Congress approved the JCPOA and the deal was adopted on October 18, 2015 and implemented on January 16, 2016 after an historic political battle. Currently, the agreement and the hostilities that arose from it continue to generate condemnation and create political partisanship, both of which have only been amplified since the election ofRepublican U.S. President Donald Trump.

Donald Trump and his Administration

Netanyahu and former President Obama experienced a turbulent relationship during the entirety of their terms, a key reason for Obama’s Democratic Party’s disinclination with Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s strained relationship with Obama, which has been replaced with a seemingly cordial one with Trump, has only added fuel to the partisan fire. Trump has praised Netanyahu’s premiership, has vowed to rip the Iran Nuclear deal to shreds, and has sharply criticized his predecessor for “disdain” and “disrespect” towards the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East. Also, Trump’s appointment of David Friedman, an outspoken hardline Israel supporter, as his administration’s Ambassador to Israel has split the American pro-Israel community into political factions.

Who supports whom?

Analyzing the results of Gallup Poll taken in the weeks before Netanyahu’s March 2015 speech to Congress in which he pleaded with the United States Congress not to ratify the Iran nuclear deal and a Pew Research Report conducted in April 2016, during the recent divisive U.S. presidential election season, the partisan gap could not be more apparent. The data shows that the more right-leaning you are, the more likely you are to support Israel, and vice-versa. An overwhelming percentage of Republicans and conservative or moderate Democrats sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians. Liberal Democrats have increased their support of Palestinians during the sustained decline in their support of Israel, a considerable change in attitude since the turn of the century.

Moreover, a post-U.S. presidential election Pew Research Poll depicts a majority of Republicans siding more with Israel while modern day Democrats have sympathized less with Israel and more with the Palestinians. Each of these polls showcase how partisan differences have arisen regarding support of Israel since 2000. Both polls also assert that white evangelical Republicans maintain the highest likelihood to stand with Israel. This sounds counter-intuitive when considering that Israel was created to the be the Jewish State, but the sizable, left-leaning Millennial populace, a part of which a great amount young American Jews make up, has steadily sympathized less with Israel and more with the Palestinians since the turn of the century for a variety of reasons.

The Consequences of Partisanship

The growing American political partisan gap in attitudes towards Israel has the potential to alter or even undermine the strong U.S.-Israel relationship grounded in history. As demonstrated by the Trump Administration’s alliance and outspoken accordance with Netanyahu and his Likud Party, the overwhelming American right-wing support of Israel reigns supreme, and unless the Israeli left can produce a Rabin doppelganger in opposition to the current Israeli government, Netanyahu’s premiership and his right-wing policies may be secure. However, the increase of Millennial sympathies with the Palestinians and their decrease of support towards Israel exhibits a trend that the Administration of the 45th President will only augment with its hardline stance towards the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East, not to mention a democratic state.

If the trend continues, then there may be significant global consequences in the future. The U.S.-Israel relationship notably includes billions of dollars in military aid and economic support. This alliance has spurned Israel’s high scientific and technological achievements, for which Israel received a top-10 ranking in the 2017 Bloomberg Innovation Index of the world’s most innovative economies. However, Israel’s settlements controversy has angered much of the international community, particularly in the United Nations, though the U.N. treatment of Israel maintains a controversy of its own.

If a hard-line Trump presidency continues to endorse, albeit tacitly, the current Israeli Knesset’s right-wing policies, then the relationship may weaken once the 45th President leaves office. Trump’s historically low approval ratings and Netanyahu’s unyielding conservative positions continue to polarize the American public, and if the Democratic Party continues shifting its preference towards far-left candidates such as Bernie Sanders, who broke historical precedent towards Israel during his campaign, then the next Democratic President, possibly Trump’s successor, and even the next Democratic controlled Congress, which could come as early as 2018, may assume an alternative stance that distances the U.S. from the Jewish State. This is a stance that could grow steadily over time because of decreasing American Millennial sympathies towards Israel.

The future of the U.S.-Israel relationship remains an important issue on the ever changing global political landscape and only time will dictate what ultimately happens. However, with delegitimization efforts against the State of Israel and world leaders, organizations, and countries that wish to destroy it, Israel needs the United States’ loyalty and backing to protect itself. The U.S. has all the leverage in its alliance with Israel because of the latter’s heavy dependence on American aid. Thus, when American Millennials, who are supporting Israel less and less, begin serving as U.S. lawmakers and shaping the U.S. political agenda, the Israeli Knesset may be forced to shift to the left and change its policies in order to save its country’s coalition with America. Even though that circumstance has yet to occur, the growing U.S. partisanship regarding Israel has set the stage for an impending situation that may very likely test the U.S.-Israel relationship and alter the modern world.

-Jake Steel