Davis Political Review Fall 2016 Publication by Angela Su

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

CONTENTS | SPRING 2016

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW 4

The Prince(ton Graduate) and the Pauper(list Supremacist) By Roland Baldwin

Social Conservatism’s Bastard Child By Atanas Spasov

The Impeachment Trap

By Malena Hansen

Trump’s Middle East: Uncertain Hope for America By Kian Rahimnejad

The Fall of Democracy in Hong Kong By Itamar Waksman

The Climb of the “Endangered White Male” By Micah Lesch

The Electoral College: An Archaic Institution By Upamanyu Lahiri

Cover design by Angela Su.

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

MASTHEAD

EDITOR IN CHIEF ANGELA SU CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER HYUN KANG CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC QUINTANAR EDITORIAL BOARD GLOBE

NATION

STATE

YOAN VIVAS-BARAJAS

CALEB BALDWIN

ITAMAR WAKSMAN

DEVELOPMENT CHAIR

GRAPHIC DESIGN EDITOR

MICAH LESCH

BETTY ZHOU STAFF WRITERS ANTONIO CASTILLO LAUREN JOHNSTON ERIC QUINTANAR UPAMANYU LAHIRI MALENA HANSEN

GRANT BONHAM KIAN RAHIMNEJAD RAJITMEET SINGH

Layout design by Angela Su. DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

THE PRINCETON GRADUATE AND THE PAUPER-LIST SUPREMACIST A check on intellectual privilege.

BY CALEB BALDWIN

hat do cisnormativity, microaggression, and the empathy gap all have in common? All of them have been used as banner terms in an ongoing struggle against what many would consider the unabashedly racist, sexist, and homophobic right wing of the United States. What is perhaps more interesting, however, is that all three of these terms were coined in the last thirty years by social scientists, researchers, and professors and published through Amherst, Harvard, and Carnegie Mellon, respectively. Their arguments, lengthy and dense, reference dozens of previous arguments and assumptions spanning decades of research in a multitude of fields. These terms only exist because their minters stood on the shoulders of giants. These terms are complex, each relying on an individual’s acceptance, or at least awareness, of their underpinning assumptions. Their nuances cannot be explored, nor their architecture appreciated, in one hundred and forty characters. They were never meant to be tags applied flippantly and unilaterally. They exist, in part, to help facilitate more precise discussion on what it means to be vulnerable, to be a 4

person of color, to have a fluid identity, and most of all, to be disenfranchised. However, in this divisive election cycle, these terms have been used as trump cards to shut down conversation and ‘win’ arguments by virtue of superior education. Their usage has shifted from descriptive to prescriptive by people seeking elevated comebacks to the typical, vulgar thoroughfare of cuck, libtard, and worse. There are two other terms that have been discussed widely this election season: white privilege and liberal elitism. The former originates from the Civil Rights Movement, developed through the independent scholarship of Theodore W. Allen over forty years of study and observation. Since then, the definition of privilege has been expanded to include gender, sexuality, ability/ disability, socioeconomic status, and other intersections of society. It became a rallying call for Clintonites in the final stages of this year’s election, to whom the epitome of privilege would be voting Republican, voting third party, or abstaining entirely. Liberal elitism, on the other hand, has been one of Trump’s most compelling boogeymen. With no clear origin,

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

the label was trumpeted throughout the Rust Belt during Trump’s presidential campaign to characterize the dismissive attitude of the ivory towers along the coast. Middle America has been disappearing for a while now, but it is only in the past few years that its remnants have been so aggressively written off as bigoted, uneducated, and most detrimentally, unimportant. Trump’s candidacy and subsequent victory owes itself largely to these abandoned voters, whose anger at the liberal elite he has cultivated. Likewise, Clinton’s loss took the Democratic Party by surprise, and has forced them to acknowledge the deepening divide between the educated and uneducated in this country. Exit polls conducted by Edison Research found that college graduates preferred Clinton by a nine point margin, the largest gap between college graduates a n d n o n -g ra dua te s si nc e 1980. The partisan rhetoric matches the severe divide in education as well, as Republicans and Democrats both flee inward from a growing culture of elitism and anti-intellectualism, respectively. In fact, ‘liberal elitism’ has become essentially a partisan term for what might be called

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

‘intellectual privilege.’ Access to education is rarely thought of as privilege in the same way that white skin or normative gender would be. However, when taking into account intersectionality, or the evaluation of an individual based on all identity groups to which they might belong, it becomes clear that education is absolutely a category of privilege. Just as with white privilege, education markedly improves every aspect of an individual’s life, but it can also leave people blind to injustices happening around them because the brand of cutting edge social justice and progressivism that inundates college campuses is often taken for granted. Individuals with educational backgrounds often look to conservative areas of the country and ask incredulously how they can think that sex and gender are the same thing, ignoring the fact that these notions are contrary to decades of traditional thinking. That is not to say that they are incorrect, but rather that it should not be surprising that people might resist those ideas. When individuals push back against those ideas, they receive patronizing lectures or, more frequently, abuse. The week following Trump’s election, for instance, Jamelle Bouie, Slate’s chief political correspondent, wrote an article entitled “There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter,” in which he stated that people who voted for Donald Trump “don’t deserve your empathy.” Tom McKay of the Mic Network similarly argued that “empathy for 6

Donald Trump supporters isn’t just misguided, it’s wrong.” These kinds of sentiments imply that supporters of Donald Trump - who, according to the election results, make up a little less than half of those who voted - are less than human, and do not deserve kindness, consideration, or even the opportunity for communication. The rightwing coalition that brought Trump into office cannot be solely characterized as a group of down-on-their-luck white workers left behind by an increasingly globalized economy. The overt bigotry and white supremacy mustered by Trump’s campaign was instrumental in securing his victory and is thus inalienable from his administration. However, to approach Trump’s supporters with such vitriol and to consider them bigoted deplorables, is, to quote Mr. McKay, not only misguided, but wrong. As with white privilege, it is not an individual’s responsibility to dispose of their privileges, but rather, to use their advantageous position in order to help vulnerable and oppressed groups obtain those benefits for themselves. It is incumbent upon the educated, the informed, those living in diversity and often inundated by a rapidly changing culture, to reach across the aisle and debate, communicate, and most importantly, connect. A study conducted earlier this year in Los Angeles County found that canvassers could drastically reduce a person’s anti-transgender prejudice with a mere ten-minute con-

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

versation. More significantly, this reduction proved to persist when researchers returned three months later, suggesting a lasting shift in opinion. The key was that these canvassers, rather than simply throwing out facts and figures or passing judgment on the perspectives of others, tried to connect and empathize. It is easy to feel angry, to lash out, to state things too harshly or too broadly, or to dichotomize differing beliefs into righteous and evil. Especially after being exposed to both the extraordinary and banal aspects of societal bigotry, one might feel compelled to approach every conversation with a friend, coworker, or family member with severity, as if each political argument is a battle of wits for which the nation’s character is at stake. However, it is both possible and noble to uphold one’s values and beliefs, while still acknowledging the humanity of others. Especially now, going into the holidays after a tumultuous election, it is more important than ever to put down the esoteric lectures, disarm, and find the common ground that allows for difficult, honest, and empathetic conversation. ■

THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING Social conservatism’s bastard child.

BY ATANAS SPASOV

n the present state of politics, it is easy to believe that our current coalitions will last forever. Democrats plant their hopes in demographic increases, mostly due to the influx of Latino immigrants and their flocking to the left. Republicans on the other hand, rely primarily on the white vote - working class and beyond - with some forward thinking party members trying to appeal to prominently conservative minority groups - primarily catholic Latinos, and AsianAmericans. The topics of God, gays, and guns no longer divides the electorate as it once did back in the 1990s. Young voters, as politically unenthusiastic as they are, have instead begun to influence society’s moral code. The shift is evident in the fact that millennials are by far the least religious generation, with only 40 percent claiming that religion is an important part of their lives. They are also the only generation to approve gay marriage by a majority (70 percent). Millennials are also much more ardent supporters of gun control legislation than the voter blocs that came before them. Society evolves one funeral at a time. The nomination and eventual election of Donald Trump was the straw that broke the camel’s back for the social

conservative movement. The Republican Party has lamented for the past few election cycles that they haven’t nominated enough of a traditionalist. Ted Cruz certainly fit the mold with his bible thumping campaign which kicked off at a Christian university in March of last year. Even at the epicenter of the grounds which were built upon those conservative ideals, the students seemed more interested by their smartphones than by the sentient gasp of old-world politics. Instead, Republican voters nominated the ultimate repudiation of what social conservatism stands for: a brash, twice divorced, playboy billionaire who couldn’t remember it was “Second Corinthians,” even after having held up the Bible as the be-all-end-all. His voters also elected someone who could be considered the most pro -gay president upon being elected into office, a significant change of face for the Republican Party. Let us not forget that on the eve of his election, Barack Obama was against gay marriage, and Hillary Clinton only changed her stance in 2013. We are for certain entering a new era in American politics. Even as the social conservative movement falls and younger voters take up a more progressive rhetoric, they still

share one core value with the movement that preceded them – the desire to shape society’s morals through an intolerance of differing opinion. There exists a period that spans the first four years of Barack Obama’s presidency which has come to define a flip from traditionalism on the right to the identitarian politics of the left. During this time, George W. Bush - who many of us had considered to be the last Republican president - stepped down to make way for a new America. With the election of Barack Obama, those that had been ideologically repressed during Bush 43s presidency, finally had the chance to emerge and did so in full force to compensate for the past 8 years. Their success is evident, as the new form of diversity seems to be defined by the lack of differing viewpoints. Anyone who dares critique modern day political correctness is seen by many on the left as complaining about no longer being able to disparage minorities openly. That is simply not the case. It is rather to combat the non-sequitur thought process that has replaced social conservatism in the last decade. One needs to look no further than Mount Holyoke University, the nation’s first women’s college. When playwright Eve

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

Ensler wrote The Vagina Monologues, which has been performed thousands of times, she must not have foreseen a day when a performance of her feminist production would be canceled because it was not inclusive to “women without vaginas.” Incidentally, the same people calling for its suspension would otherwise make no distinction between a trans-woman and a natural born woman. As did social conservatives, the new set of activists seek to limit the allowable scope of language, and through that, opinion. The Christian right’s attempt to ban “obscene or indecent” media back in the 1990s was triumphantly curtailed by Reno v. ACLU (1997). In a similar vein, a new law in NYC has been set up to fine people for using the wrong gender pronoun. People can now be forced, under the threat of substantial legal liability and a $250,000 fine, to say what others want them to say, whether 8

or not they want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not they think it’s a lie. While the motivation behind this new political coalition has changed, the underlying instrument through which it is ensured has not. Throughout history, society has always challenged movements that seek to limit our speech and actions. The current political rhetoric, masked under a veil of inclusivity, should be no exception. Back in the 1990s, the advent of political correctness was driven back quite successfully by bands of social conservatives. However, instead of disappearing, its followers instead thrived in the shadows, gaining academic and media positions, then consolidating their powers and reemerging as what we know today as Social Justice Warriors. This time around, there is much more on the line for them because if the movement falters now, it will

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

break with the full support of the media, politicians, and academia. It is only now that people are looking up from their phones and saying that social justice and all that comes with it – the language policing, safe-spaces, trigger warnings, microaggressions – is utter bull. If enough people break its stronghold on the public square, it will crumble at the height of its power. Social justice has no higher level to ascend to, and is now coming down the other side of the mountain slope because people want to reclaim their sense of self-rule. They want to be able to say, do, think, play, and read anything. They have faith that they alone are able to make the best judgements for themselves. Behind this new cultural libertarian movement lies one simple principle: a fundamental rejection that someone else knows better than you do how you should live your life. ■

THE IMPEACHMENT TRAP BY MALENA HANSEN

n Wednesday, November 9, 2016, the ballots had been cast and the identity of our new President was revealed. The dominant feeling was that of surprise, as many people questioned how Donald Trump could have possibly won the presidency. However, a professor named Allan Lichtman predicted the election of Donald Trump long before this November. He has more recently revealed his belief that Donald Trump is likely to be impeached shortly after he obtains office in late January of next year. Professor Lichtman stated that his prophecy of impeachment is

based on “gut feeling” rather than the legitimate statistical measurements he typically employs. Even so, this prediction has spurred more conversation about conflict of interest between the Trump brand and the Trump presidency. Historical precedents have taught the public that no politician can exist without any conflict of interest. However, Donald Trump’s commitment to his own interests, from personal to international, has trapped him in a delicate place, where there is a great possibility that he will face the process of impeachment. If the forecasted impeachment occurs, it will undoubtedly affect

the future of the office of the presidency, both during the Trump administration and into the following presidential terms. The personal fiscal policies of Trump are a dominant issue, despite the fact that they remain largely ambiguous. The largest issue that President-elect Trump is facing right now concerns his personal assets from his multinational business. Trump has the option to liquidate these assets, but he can also put his holdings into a blind trust account. Blind trusts have become popular among elected officials since 1963, when Lyndon B. Johnson first used one to reroute his per-

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

-sonal finances to his lawyers. Since blind trusts ensure that the beneficiaries have no control over the holdings, this technique is tailored to avoid conflict of interest between personal and political finances. However, during a Fox business debate, Trump revealed that he is unsure of what he will do with his assets. He claimed that, “I would probably have my children run [the blind trust] with my executives. And I wouldn’t ever be involved, because I wouldn’t care about anything but our country.” As straightforward as this statement seems, it must be approached with caution. Although Trump states that he will not have direct control over his assets or continue to run his company, he asserts that his children will obtain control through their leadership positions in his company. The main issue is that Trump is more likely to face allegations of corruption or illegal investments and these will interfere with his duty, as President, to protect the public 10

good. These charges are not unlike the criticism that other politicians have received regarding conflict of interest, such as Mitt Romney and his business assets when he ran in 2012. However, the topic is more salient with Trump because of his lack of clarity and his family’s role in the situation. He has established himself in a situation that will potentially have dire consequences for his administration and it is his responsibility to figure out how to solve it. Failure to separate his personal connections and business ties with his political role and policy agenda could easily risk a case for impeachment. In contrast to Trump’s more ambiguous personal finances, the media has publicized other pressing business endeavors, such as the scandalous Trump University. This issue has embroiled the businessman in several winded lawsuits. Post-election, Donald Trump paid a total of $25 million to settle these lawsuits. However, the issue itself

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

has not been settled. In September of this year, Professor Christopher Lewis Peterson of the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law published a “legal analysis” of how the actions Trump took surrounding the fraudulent university are impeachable offenses. The paper covers the main charges in the lawsuit, which are “fraud and racketeering.” Those practices are illegal under both state and federal law and constitute the grounds for impeachment under “high crimes or misdemeanors.” The Trump University cases, although from nearly a decade before this election, remain relevant because the legal battle has lasted so long and they have only been settled recently. Despite this settlement, Trump made nearly $40 million through his university, ensuring a large personal profit. This particular case shows that Donald Trump imprisoned himself into a situation where he had to choose the lesser of two evils: pay the settlement and draw attention to the case or refuse to acknowledge it and risk even more public speculation concerning the matter. However, it also reveals that Trump’s personal characteristics associated with his business practices may be detrimental to the public good when he is inaugurated in January. In the international arena, there has been speculation about how overseas investors will interact with the Trump administration. Trump has business ties in several other countries, which will undoubtedly affect policies set forth by his White House. Ac-

-cording to the Washington Post, “At least 111 Trump companies have done business in 18 countries and territories across South America, Asia, and the Middle East.” More recently, in order to conduct business, Trump has invited diplomats from countries spanning across the globe to a conference which was held at his very own Trump Hotel in Washington D.C. Although some foreign officials distanced themselves from the Trump enterprises during campaign season, they find it comforting and available now that Donald Trump is the President-elect. However, this situation be used as a ploy for Trump to gain profit, both personally and politically. Foreign leaders often want to win America’s favor in business and other dealings. They believe that staying at a competitor’s hotel rather than at the President’s hotel

might ruin their favor. There are currently no ethics laws that prevent this level of conflict of interest from happening, or at least it has been determined that they do not apply to the President or to the Vice President. However, the lack of separation between these interests can lead to risky business dealings. Once again, the President-elect has drawn himself into a corner with no easy way out. However, it is a choice that Trump has made for himself and he will have to deal with the consequences, even if impeachment is one of them. In each of these separate cases, President-elect Donald Trump has willingly tied himself up in his own affairs. He continually puts himself in situations where he must decide to sacrifice his own dealings and confront the press coverage or to maintain his business connections and risk ac-

cusations of conflict of interest. This trap has been created by his personal characteristics and will be exacerbated now that he is a public official, let alone the most important public official in the United States. In the past, Trump’s personal business ties have garnered negative press without the public pressure of the Presidency. After his inauguration in January, the public will see how Trump deals with his conflict of interest, from his personal finances to public affairs. Whether or not he is impeached, Donald Trump’s business dealings have already and will continue to shape the modern office of the Presidency because of the example he is setting and how Washington officials, media outlets, and public opinion react to it. ■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

MIDDLE EAST EYE

UNCERTAIN HOPE FOR A NEW AMERICAN FUTURE Both anticipation and fear surround Trump’s uncertain plan for the Middle East.

BY KIAN RAHIMNEJAD

onald Trump’s approach to American foreign policy in the Middle East espoused during his campaign was a nightmare to the ears of the neoconservative, interventionist foreign policy elites who dominate the Republican Party and hawkish segments of the Democratic Party.

Many of these figures, who lobby politicians on Capitol Hill and sit in think tanks on Beltway, such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, were referred to by Trump disparagingly when he said, “The so-called insiders within the Washington ruling

class are the people who got us into trouble. So why should we continue to pay attention to them?” Some of the “troubles” that these policymakers got America into, Trump believes, include the failure of United States policy towards Syria and the Invasion of Iraq. Unlike the mainstream

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

foreign policy establishment in the United States which calls for Bashar al Assad’s removal as the key most important order of business in Syria, Donald Trump says he wants ISIS defeated first. He opposes the arming of rebel groups fighting the regimen, acknowledging “I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting Isis, and you have to get rid of Isis,” and “Assad’s bad, but maybe these people are worse.” Though this view may be to the distaste of policymakers on Think Tank Row such as the Brookings Institution, whose millions of dollars of donations from the Qatari Government anti -interventionist critics assume had it vested on supporting regime change in Syria and influencing Hillary Clinton’s administration had she taken office, the fight against ISIS appeals more directly to the average American who may not know or care much about investing American lives and resources into overthrowing a secular president fighting Islamists 5000 miles away. This belief falls in line with one of Donald Trump’s famous campaign slogans, “America First.” Though he is against intervening in the bloody civil war and has insisted on his refusal to admit refugees from Syria, he hopes to “Build a safe zone in Syria. Build a big, beautiful safe zone, and you have whatever it is so people can live, and they’ll be happier.” Though whether this “safe zone” will include a no fly zone over it for protection, a proposition Trump 14

has opposed adamantly, is unknown. An important facet of Trump’s unconventional Middle East policy approach during his campaign was the fierce veracity with which he stated his opposition to the Iraq War and badgered the former Republican administration of George W. Bush for allegedly lying to the country in the run-up to the Iraq War. He stated that, “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, and there were none.” He said the attack on Iraq, “Was not very helpful” and that “Iraq is a disaster right now” as a result. He even went as far as moderately praising Iraq’s brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, saying, “But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They did not read them the rights. They did not talk. They were terrorists. Over.” Trump’s attack on the last Republican president and his integrity was a big risk to him, considering such an act is very rare by a same-party primary challenger and that George W. Bush is still highly respected in South, where the debate was taking place. This incident highlighted the unique direction of his campaign, which looked to be less driven by political correctness, and more untamed, unabashed and populistic. Another unprecedented viewpoint held in recent years among a presidential nominee that Trump embraced when it came to the Middle East was his view towards the United States’ Persian Gulf allies and Israel. Similar to the way he referred to

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

Eastern European NATO allies threatened by Russia, he said, “We are supporting nations now, militarily, we are supporting nations like Saudi Arabia… We are supporting them militarily and they pay us a fraction, a fraction of what they should be paying us and of the cost.” This comment, in addition to his campaign demands for half of Kuwait’s oil as the price for the American-led liberation in 1991, led to a renowned Saudi prince starting a tweet war with Trump, calling him “A disgrace,” with Mr. Trump responding to Prince Alwaleed Talal saying, “Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our US politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected.” In addition, during an MSNBC town hall discussion with Joe Scarborough, Trump declared he “wanted to be sort of a neutral guy… I don’t want to say whose fault it is” when it came to finding a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Though Trump later went back on those comments during a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) conference, he was harshly rebuked at the time by right wing pro-Israel groups and prominent neoconservative figures such as Bill Kristol and Ben Shapiro, who went into a frenzy. There are areas, however, in which neoconservatives of the Republican foreign policy establishment elite and Donald Trump come together and agree on Middle East Policy, albeit in different ways: Iran. Trump has repeatedly referred to the Iranian Nuclear

Deal as a “mess” and a “terrible deal,” much to the liking of Beltway think-tanks worried about Israel’s security and Iran’s potential buildup of weapons and ability to strengthen Hezbollah with the return of tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets. However, Trump’s idea of not completely, ripping up the deal, but simply renegotiating it and enforcing it stringently, compared to his primary opponents who promised to destroy the deal, is a far more realistic and appropriate approach to the issue at hand. Considering the lifting of sanctions on Iran was an effort by the United Nations and the P5+1 and not only the United States, backing out of the deal would not only be in violation of international law, but other nations would not find any reason to reinstall sanctions, and would probably continue to do business with Iran. Trump mentioned, “You see Russia [is] selling missiles and Germany’s involved. Everybody’s

involved now with Iran selling them stuff. We’re probably [going to] be the only ones that won’t be selling them anything.” Though this approach may not possess the level of hawkishness and aggressiveness on Iran desired by folks at the militant Foundation for Defense of Democracies and its chicken hawk leaders like Mike Doran and Mark Dubowitz, for example, they will likely be content with Trump’s increased hostility towards the Middle East power. Though Donald Trump’s campaign remarks in regard to the Middle East may have seemed to have taken a somewhat libertarian, paleoconservative approach to foreign affairs, whether or not he applies these policies may be based on his cabinet and advisors. Some neoconservative members of the Never Trump movement, under the impression Trump had no shot at winning the election, have recovered from their shock and are at-

tempting to place themselves at Trump’s favor and in his administration. According to the New York Times, “One person who is helping Mr. Trump’s transition team said the group was already receiving résumés from former Republican officials, including some of the signers of two open letters this year excoriating Mr. Trump’s foreign policy views.” When rumors were floating around of John Bolton, a war-like neoconservative who advocates war against Iran, was being shortlisted for Secretary of State, many of Trump’s ardent supporters such as Roger Stone, a Republican campaign operative, while Kentucky Senator Rand Paul feared that the same elements Donald Trump fought against in his campaign were trying to seep into his administration. Fears however were quelled when a Trump transition team member dismissed the rumors. Regardless, anxiety remains among many of Trump’s supporters that such foreign policy establishment figures will find their way into the new administration. Whether or not Trump and his closest advisors can combat this will be the test of whether the President Elect can bring about a new era of American foreign policy in the Middle East, one which is based on the ideals: “America First.” ■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

THE FALL OF DEMOCRACY IN HONG KONG BY ITAMAR WAKSMAN

uestions about the autonomy of Hong Kong and its relationship to the mainland China have been aggravated with the disqualification of two pro-independence lawmakers from the legislature. Yau Waiching and Baggio Leung, two young legislators engulfed in an oath-taking scandal in which they mocked their commitment to the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China(PRC), were barred from retaking their oaths and fulfilling their electoral mandate by an interpretation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the territory’s

mini constitution. This interpretation, handed down from the National People’s Congress, the legislative body of the PRC, represents the increasing involvement of Beijing within the affairs of Hong Kong, leaving the city’s residents to question their future status within China. Ever since the 1997 hand over of sovereignty from Great Britain to the PRC, the fate of Hong Kong’s parallel institutions, civil rights, and democracy have hung in the balance. Within the agreement between the two powers, taken without the considera-

tions of the residents of the territory, China ensured that Hong Kong would be protected under the constitutional principle of “One country, Two Systems,” guaranteeing a high degree of autonomy for the region. This manifested itself in the creation of the Hong Kong Special Administrative District(SAR) and the existence of the rule of law, free press, a market economy, and unrestricted internet within the region which are absent on mainland China. However, the Basic Law severely restricts the degree of democracy existent within the

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

the SAR’s government. The PRC designed Hong Kong’s institutions in a way that guarantees that the Legislative Council, the city’s legislature, is dominated by the pro-Beijing camp and that the Executive is chosen from a pool of pre-approved candidates by a council of pro-business electors. This institutional construction, built to block any policy that diverges from Beijing’s main line, restricts the voice of everyday Hong Kongers. In 2014, the people’s dissatisfaction with their relatively miniscule voice resulted in the Umbrella Movement, a over 70 day long protest dominated by students which called for direct elections of the SAR’s Executive and the retreat of the PRC’s influence. The movement was instead met by arguably the most violent crackdown since the handover of sovereignty in 1997. China saw the calls for democracy as fundamentally contrary to the Communist Party’s absolute grip on power . The consequent reform package developed by the Executive C.Y. Leung in conjunction with the Central Government in Beijing fell well short of the demands of Hong Kongers for the greater democratization of governance. While the movement may have resulted in little change, the seeds of dissent were sown in a region already plagued by high inequality, stagnant growth, and a rapidly exorbitant housing prices. All of these pressures precipitated in this years Legislative Council election. For the first time in Hong Kong’s history, a wave of not only pro-democracy but pro18

independence politicians ran, claiming that the city’s political grievances could not be answered within the framework of the Basic Law. Most of these new Hong Kong nativist were former leaders of the Umbrella Movement, aiming to use the city’s institutions to disperse their message. In order to ensure Hong Kong’s continued autonomy and protection of freedoms, the city would have to formally separate from China and redefine its sovereignty. If not, mainland forces would continuously encroach on the values the city’s residents regarded as what separates them from a citizen of the mainland. In total, 6 pro-independence candidates won election in the general constituencies, the section of legislature popularly elected. However, when the legislature first convened in October and the new members were sworn in, many of these young, nativist politicians decided to use the moment as an opportunity to voice their message. Various proindependence politicians entered the chamber with flags from the 2014 protests and swearing allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation”. But it was mostly the actions of Yau and Leung, who used a derogatory term dating back to the Japanese occupation, which caused public outrage. They immediately had their oaths invalidated and were told to retake them the next week. However, when they arrived to retake their oaths, the pro-Beijing camp in the legislature walked out, ending quorum and once again post-

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

poning the process. Eventually the city’s Executive filed a formal judicial challenge to the validity of the localist’s retake, resulting in over a week of protests both for and against the pair of legislators. Before the Judiciary could come to a decision, the NPC interjected and executed its right to interpret the Basic Law, ruling that the pair could not retake their oath. Finally, on November 15, the High Court found both to have violated the Basic Law in their botched oath, therefore disqualifying them from becoming members of the Legislative Council. The interpretation of the Basic Law, only the fifth since the creation of the Hong Kong SAR, has called into question the central government’s respect for Hong Kong’s self-governance. Hong Kong’s independent judiciary and rule of law are one of its most profoundly beneficial institutions and is widely touted as a positive example of the benefits of Hong Kong’s separate system of governance. The NPC’s interjection in Hong Kong affairs has eroded the legitimacy of the city’s institutions in deciding their own affairs. Additionally, it has made it clear that Xi JinPing, China’s president, and his government are more preoccupied with maintaining their absolute authority and expanding the mainland’s sphere of influence than the will of territory’s people. The central government worries that allowing the pro-independence movement to continue increases its chance of gaining greater traction and enacting serious democratic re-

-forms, possibly sparking similar movements in other already tense regions like Tibet and Xinjiang. One of the keys to the Communist Party maintaining the Mandate of Heaven is its absolute authority over a united China. Allowing the growth of an independence movement within Hong Kong is a direct affront to the Party’s very claim to being the steward of China’s sovereignty. What happens next is unpredictable. According to the NPC’s interpretation any of the pro-independence legislators could be disqualified from taking their positions and a flurry of legal challenges against them has already begun. This incident, coupled with the disappearance of a number of anti-Beijing publishers and violent Chinese New Years riots have demonstrated the uneasiness the average Hong Konger feels in relation to their situation. Independence seems excessive as most residents feel a connection to China due to a shared history and culture, as well as fearing a harsh military response from Beijing. Conversely, Hong Kongers accept that their story diverged from the mainland’s during the colonial period, and that they have become accustomed and reliant on an institutional structure that directly feeds into their values and ways of life. To become like another Chinese city, speaking Standard Mandarin as opposed to Cantonese and falling under the civil restrictions present on the mainland, is an unsavory option. Additionally, the oath-taking saga has in-

creased C.Y. Leung and the proBeijing establishment’s political capital. The government now hopes to use it to resurrect a controversial security law, known as Article 23 of the Basic Law, that was scrapped after a wave of massive protests in 2003. While Hong Kong is busy deciding what direction it wants to take in relation to its status within China, taking too long may invoke the central government to make a decision for the city. How this situation plays into the rising tensions in East Asia is also unclear. Ever since Xi JinPing took power in 2012, China has been expanding its influence and power throughout the region, including exasperating its territorial disputes in the South China Sea and closing off diplomatic channels with Taiwan after the election of Tsai Ing-Wen and her pro-independence leaning party. With the election of Donald Trump and his isolationists views, the stability of the region has become jeopardized. Hong Kong simply cannot be sure that the United States, the selfproclaimed champion of democracy, would support its efforts towards greater independence and democracy. In mid-November, Joshua Wong, one of the chief leaders of the Umbrella Movement and another recently elected nativist legislator, visited Washington, D.C. to meet with Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and to urge President Elect Trump to “fully support human rights in Hong Kong.” Throughout these meetings, various Congressman reaf-

firmed their commitment to the autonomy of Hong Kong and the protection of its institutions. But this is a clear contradiction to the official line of Trump, and the accommodation of these conflicting policy preferences leaves no room for tranquility in the minds of Hong Kongers. While Hong Kong has little to help predict its status in the near future, the prospects of what the territory will look like after 2047 and the expiration of the hand-over agreement are even bleaker. That outcome will be decided by the political climate in China, the experience of the people of Hong Kong with 50 years of Chinese rule, and the willingness of the international community to apply pressure in that situation. For over a century Hong Kong has had a special role in being a bridge between East and West, a great meeting place for two great civilizations and the resulting synthesis of those two spheres. But as its destiny is entwined once again with that of the rest of China, it will be unclear what vestiges of the “Fragrant Harbor” will be left standing. ■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

With upwards of 500 views per day, advertising with DPR is a fantastic way to reach UC Davis students and community members. (See page 21 for details)

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

CONTACT DPRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Development Chair Micah Lesch at DPRMAGUCD@GMAIL.COM for further information.

THE CLIMB OF THE “ENDANGERED WHITE MALE” A resentful demographic clings to political authority.

BY MICAH LESCH

n speaking on his predictions for the 2016 presidential election, Michael Moore - a documentary filmmaker, author, and political activist - outlined the five reasons why Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, would more than likely beat his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in the race for president. Moore made this prediction at a time when an overwhelming number of sources

were illustrating, through polling data, that Clinton would win by a substantial margin. One of the reasons Moore uses to justify his argument is a sociological construct he refers to as the “Endangered White Male” - a subgroup of the American electorate who feels, according to Moore, that they have lost political power and authority in the eight years under an African American president, and that a

subsequent term under Clinton would only further diminish their voice. It is true that some members of this demographic align with this argument because they feel as if the political platforms they are passionate about have not been adequately represented in political office - that perhaps the legislation put forth by the democratic party is more concerned with minority group inter-

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

-ests than their own. However, one might argue that these feelings stem more significantly from the white male’s need to maintain a sense of authority in politics that is not issue-based, but simply derived from attitudes of racial and gender supremacy. If this is, in fact, true, one can draw the conclusion that this group’s opposition to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - an African American and a woman - might be explained by the inherent connections between male supremacy and white racial dominance. For this demographic, the notion that someone of a race or gender other than their own is in a position of authority, with platforms that are focused on bolstering minority group interests, is a threat to their own power. In response to this threat, Moore explains that the “Endangered White Male” – a label which refers specifically to the community of white, male, blue-collar workers living throughout the U.S., 22

but primarily in the American South and Midwest – constructs racial and gender-based ideologies of supremacy, which are often expressed through prejudicial and discriminatory attitudes, when he feels that his political authority is being diminished. These attitudes manifest in a variety of contexts. Whether it be frustration regarding the Obama administration’s decision to stand in solidarity with the Muslim community during the upsurge of ISIS attacks abroad, or opposition to the growing national focus on protecting members of the transgender community with gender-neutral bathrooms, these attitudes are based in this community’s necessity to uphold their political authority. Ultimately, these ideologies only serve to widen the gap between political parties, giving further motivation for the left to generalize about the right, claiming them to be a constituency comprised of ignorant and uneducated

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

“deplorables,” as Clinton referred to them on the campaign trail. They also provide the right with ammunition to claim that the left does not have their interests in mind when their politicians craft legislation. So, the question becomes, how do both sides– the democratic party in particular, having lost on all fronts in this election – close this everwidening gap so that the “Endangered White Male” no longer feels that his authority is being threatened and can begin to recognize the ways in which the left’s policies may, in fact, be beneficial to him? The first step is recognizing the connection between this feeling of “endangerment” and the prejudicial attitudes that this community stereotypically espouses to. This country was founded by white, propertyowning men who gave the right to vote to white, propertyowning men, and from the perspective of the “Endangered White Male,” they have slowly been losing that authority ever since. According to the Pew Research Center’s voting numbers from this election, the U.S. electorate is now the most ethnically diverse than ever before. In fact, nearly one-third of eligible voters are non-white. Simultaneously, the white share of the electorate is slowly falling, decreasing from 71% in 2012 to 68% during this election. When one looks at these numbers from the perspective of the “Endangered White Male” the man who wholeheartedly embraces mantras like “Make Amer-

-ica Great Again” in an attempt to slow this everchanging division of power in American politics and revert back to a time when his political presence was greater - it is easy to see where he feels his authority is being threatened. This anxiety was taken advantage of by the Trump campaign during this election, who, unlike the Obama and Clinton campaigns, spoke directly to the resentment this demographic has been feeling, although it was coming from a person of privilege who knows nothing of the struggle this community has endured, but rather wanted to funnel their misguided frustrations into a vote for him. The second step in solving this divide is realizing that it will not be issue-based campaigns by the Democrats that will convince this community to suddenly vote in their favor. The white communities that voted for Trump did not do so because they stuck steadfast to his platforms. As an example, one can examine the paradox of the health insurance in the United States. Over 20 million U.S. citizens acquired insurance through Obama’s Affordable Care Act, a strong majority of whom live in rural communities, and yet the same people voted for Trump the candidate who passionately promised he would dismantle the ACA - rather than Clinton, who wholeheartedly stood by preserving it. This community voted overwhelmingly against their own interests, which proves that Donald Trump did not win this part of the electorate with just issue-

focused platforms. The platforms that Trump campaigned on building a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico or creating a registry to put all Muslim citizens in a federal database - were, in some ways, simply manifestations of the frustration that this community feels as their voice is diminished in politics. In essence, Trump won them by feeding their sense of political resentment. He won them by speaking directly to their anger and pointing out the supposed favoritism that Obama and the Democratic party had expressed toward racial and ethnic minority groups. It is arguably the case that the “Endangered White Male” is not inherently racist, sexist, or prejudicial, but has observed the Democratic party’s focus on minority group interests instead of his own. In fearing for his own livelihood, he has directed these prejudicial attitudes toward the racial and ethnic minority communities that the Democratic Party has only sought to help. This idea that feelings of

political “endangerment” leads to the outward expression of prejudicial attitudes is explored at length by Arlie Hochschild, retired Professor of Sociology at UC Berkeley, in her book “Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning in the American Right,” in which she recounts her time living in rural Louisiana for five years to interview this white, primarily male dominated, conservative community. Hochschild recounts the details of an interview she conducted with an elderly man living in a small town in northern Louisiana who explained why he voices his extreme-conservatism, utilizing occasional racial and genderbased prejudice, through a metaphor he claimed to abide by. He described everyone in the United States as being in a long line, slowly climbing toward the top of a mountain, upon which lies the epitome of the “American Dream.” The man envisioned Barack Obama at the top of this mountain looking down at all the people he is encouraging and

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

helping to reach the top. However, the man believed that Obama is not helping him to climb this mountain, but rather helping those he somewhat insensitively refers to as “line-cutters” – members of racial minority groups, members of the LGBT community, women, refugees – people who, according to this man, have not been “in line” on this pilgrimage as long as he has. He felt as if President Obama was not his president, but rather only theirs. He felt forgotten. In anticipating the obvious flaws in this analogy – the clear fact that the communities this man mentioned have struggled just as much, if not more, than members of his community has – Hochschild points out that at no point did this man, other than referring to these people as “line-cutters,” go out of his way to work in a racist, sexist, or homophobic remark in his explanation. Hochschild surmises that this man did not, in fact, align with the insensitive attitudes he occasionally espouses 24

to, but simply engaged in such candor in order to maintain his diminishing political authority. In his campaign, Donald Trump spoke to people like this man - people who feel as if they have been given the short end of the stick under a Democratic presidency because their interests have not remained at the forefront of Obama’s platforms. Yet, the anxiety that this community clearly feels, which translates into anger and frustration directed at nearly all minority groups, is not wholly based on the issues that Trump focused on during his campaign, but rather stems much more significantly from the need to maintain any remaining political authority. Donald Trump understood and played to the climb of the “Endangered White Male.” He gave a voice to his constant need to bolster his political identity and authority through racial and gender-based ideologies of supremacy in order to “keep his place in line” on this mountain. So, the question remains, can the Democratic party ever hope to break the never-ending “climb?” How can the Democrats hope to appeal to the “Endangered White Male” and help him to realize that when he votes for candidates like Trump, he is not voting for platforms that are in his own political interests, but rather for an empty voice through which he can express his resentment? Perhaps the Democratic party should wait until the vote share of minority groups outweighs the share of the white community in the American electorate?

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

When considering these and other questions in their next steps, the Democrats must realize that the climb of the “Endangered White Male” will continue until they feel as if their importance in the American electorate is recognized. Accomplishing this goal will only come through educating this community on the tangible ways in which the Democratic Party’s platforms can, in fact, benefit them. As Hochschild advocates, not “talking to convince” can be the first step in educating someone who believes that there struggles are the fault of another community who is getting more attention than them or is somehow upholding more political authority than they are. Only then can the Democratic Party hope to convince this community that their platforms are, in fact, in their interest. ■

AN ARCHAIC INSTITUTION Is it time to abolish the electoral college?

BY UPAMANYU LAHIRI

or the second time in sixteen years, America will have a President who received fewer votes than his principal opponent in the election. Unlike George W. Bush’s controversial election in 2000, there is no confusion about the results this time. Donald J. Trump is the clear winner by the rules of the game; but when the rules deliver a result that has gone against the will of the popular majority of the people in two of the last five election cycles, are the rules worth keeping? Hillary Clinton’s current popular vote lead is estimated to be around 1.7 million

votes; this is more than three times Al Gore’s popular vote advantage over Bush in 2000, and it is expected to expand further as all the ballots are counted. However, the electoral college tells a different story, as Trump has 306 electoral college votes to Clinton’s 232, suggesting a good, if not comfortable, victory for the former. The reason for this, as the Wall street Journal explained, is that Clinton overperformed in states that “didn’t matter for the Electoral College,” even improving upon Obama’s performance in states like California and Texas, while Trump won narrow but

crucial victories in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan which put him over the line for electoral college votes. While the merits and demerits of Hillary’s electoral strategy can be debated, as a matter of principle, we can agree that a 30 point popular victory should not result in an electoral defeat. Generating outcomes that voters did not popularly support is the biggest, but by no means the only, argument against the electoral college system. By the way the electoral college is designed, a state is allotted votes equal to its representation in the

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

House and the Senate, which gives an inbuilt advantage to small states. Also, the margin of victory in a state is irrelevant. A half percentage point victory in a populous state like Florida yields the exact same number of electoral college votes as a ten-point victory. This practically shrinks the electoral map from the entire country to just a few swing states. Candidates often decide to not to invest resources in a state they are likely to lose, as improving their performance there is of no use unless it can be won. The problem goes beyond just lack of spotlight for non- swing states. It also drives down motivation to vote. A Republican voter in California or a Democratic voter in Alabama will have little motivation to get out and vote if they believe that their candidate is going to lose the state and all its electoral college votes anyway. This system, which gives disproportionate weight to voters of swing states, violates the principle of ‘one man one vote,’ a principle that is central to representative democracy. It is one of the reasons, among many others, why the US has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the developed world. There are a number of alternatives to the electoral college, like a national popular vote or an election conducted by congress. These systems have their share of proponents and critics; however, they are, on balance, considerably more democratic than the electoral college. Moreover, under each of these systems, a voter in a non-swing state would feel more motivated to vote because even if their can26

didate loses the state, running up his or her margin in the state will help them overall. By far, the most talked about alternative to the Electoral College is a system of National Popular Vote. There are many advantages to this system. First of all, it is by far the most simply democratic, as the one with more votes wins. It also eliminates the problem of overemphasis on swing states, as candidates would have an incentive to campaign in non-swing states if every vote counts equally, and helps them run up their margin of popular vote nationally. There is some concern among the smaller states that this will reduce voting power in rural areas and make candidates scout for votes only in the big states and populous urban centers at their expense. While this is true, a popular vote system still provides significantly more voter equity than our current electoral system. Perhaps most crucially, having a national popular vote would likely bring down the extreme polarization of politics that has led to persistent gridlock in our system. It would force Democrats to look beyond their largely coastal, urban, liberal base to more rural and suburban voters, and Republicans to appeal to not just their mostly white, rural and suburban constituencies in Middle America, but also to more ethnically diverse, less conservative voters living in cities and on the country’s coasts. There is another alternative to the Electoral College, which is to have the national legislature (the Congress) choose the President after the election,

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

similar to how it is done in Parliamentary systems. However, this system has problems too, the chief one being gerrymandering, or redrawing of House districts to favor one party over the other. The Republicans were in control of a majority of State legislatures during the Census of 2010, and thus redistricted to their benefit. This explains why they retained control of the House in 2012 and 2016 despite winning fewer votes on both occasions. The problem of gerrymandered districts can be solved by having nonpartisan redistricting commissions. However, this system could still, in theory, yield a winner who received fewer votes, although this is much less likely than under the Electoral College. It would solve the problem of unfair voting power being given to swing states, and motivate voters of other states to vote. However, the question of how to abolish the electoral college is a much more difficult one. Even proponents of abolishing it acknowledge that doing so would be a Herculean task, particularly in the near term under a Trump presidency. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced legislation in the Senate to abolish the electoral college, but there’s little hope of it passing. The electoral College was established by a Constitutional amendment and it would require another one to abolish it. This means that Boxer’s bill would require approval by two thirds majority in both the House and Senate and three fourths of all state legislatures within seven years of introduction. To say that the bill is a long

shot would be an understatement, as the Republicans now control the House, and the Senate as well as a majority of state legislatures. There is another, albeit equally difficult, way to abolish the electoral college via something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. States could decide to automatically award their electoral votes to whoever wins the nationwide popular vote. If enough states did this, then the winner of the popular vote would win the election every time. So far, just 10 blue states have signed on to this, adding up to 165 electoral votes, far below the requisite number needed to sway an election. There is little hope of any red or even swing states signing on, as they

often benefit from the current system. Besides, even if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact did have a realistic path to abolishing the Electoral College, there would be backlash. The Democrats clearly partisan motivation of putting their candidate in the White House is bound to lead to opposition, some it justified, against the measure even if it is the logical thing to do. The Democrats had no complaints in 2012 when Barack Obama scored a comprehensive Electoral College victory over Mitt Romney. Interestingly, at that time, a certain Republican by the name of Donald J. Trump wasn’t happy and tweeted that “The Electoral College is a disaster for democracy.” Naturally, he has changed his

mind since then. If this issue is to be sorted, then it should be taken out of the realm of partisan bickering. A truly bipartisan effort is needed at reaching a solution. Republicans need to understand that while this out of date, arguably undemocratic system has benefitted them today, tomorrow the tables could very well turn, and they could be the ones winning the popular vote and losing the election. While it is true that it may seem unlikely at the moment, given the way that the electoral college is set up to over represent the Republican rural base, stranger things have happened, just look at who we elected president. ■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

PRINT ADVERTISING

WEB ADVERTISING

Single Issue Advertisement:

Box ad (250 pixels x 250 pixels):

•

Quarter-page: $25

•

2 weeks: $50

•

Half-page: $45

•

1 month: $85

•

Full-page: $65

•

3 months: $250

Multi-Issue Advertisement: •

Quarter-page: $45

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

Davis Political Review is the first and only nonpartisan political commentary magazine on the campus of UC Davis. Our story begins with a simple question

weekly online articles and a quarterly printed

asked by Founder and Former Editor-in-

publication, writers of the Davis Political

Chief Alex E. Tavlian in October 2012: “Are

Review inform and educate students about

there any UCD Political Science majors

meaningful political issues they may not have

interested in starting a political commentary

paid attention to otherwise. While the

magazine?” The first editorial board was

editorial board of our publication remains

elected and the publication was formed on

nonpartisan, each writer is encouraged to

December 5, 2012. In late April, the Davis

take a distinct viewpoint in crafting opinion

Political Review launched its website and

pieces published daily online.

released its first print issue on the Davis campus.

After restructuring and condensing the makeup of the publication, the Davis

After a four-month rest period, the Davis

Political Review now consists of a volunteer

Political Review was reestablished by

staff that is completely student-run. The

previous Editor-in-Chief Kristine Craig, in

dedicated writers, editors and board

January 2014. The baton was passed to

members of the Davis Political Review make

current Editor-in-Chief Angela Su in March

it possible to achieve our mission: engaging

2016.

students and members of the community in a constructive dialogue around complex

At a critical point in the Davis Political

political issues in a way it has never before.

Review’s history, our publication took on an entirely new approach to its capability to reach all students on campus. Through

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016

Enjoy.

YOUR AD HERE With upwards of 500 online views per day, advertising with DPR is a fantastic way to reach UC Davis students and community members.

CONTACT DPR’s Development Chair Micah Lesch at DPRMAGUCD@GMAIL.COM for further information.

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Fall 2016