DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 1
CONTENTS | WINTER2016
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW 18 PROFESSIONAL SPORTS ARE HERE TO STAY
FEATURES & RECENT
BY ALEX LAUBE
8
MEXICO, EL
CHAPO, AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT BY YOAN VIVAS-BARAJA
25
STATE & NATIONAL
13
GLOBAL
MARRIAGE IN
EXECUTIVE
THE US?
ACTION INTRIGUE
5
A LEADER’S
BY JESSICA CANCHOLA
SILENCE IN
UNIVERSAL
MYANMAR
FACES
HEALTHCARE
BY CONNIE KWONG
OF DPR
BY MEGAN GRAMLICH
BY AIDAN COYNE
15 28
FORCED
Get to know the talented writers and editors of the Davis Political Review.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 2
21
LGBTQIA
RIGHTS IN RUSSIA BY BEN MARCHMAN
MASTHEAD EDITOR IN CHIEF KRISTINE CRAIG
CO-EDITOR IN CHIEF ANGELA SU CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
CHIEF OF STAFF
JASON COX
CYNTHIA MURILLO
PUBLICITY CHAIR
DEVELOPMENT CHAIR
TANVI VARMA
KIANA OKHOVAT EDITORIAL BOARD
DANIELLE DAMPER
AIDAN COYNE
KAILEE DAHAN
COPY EDITOR
GRAPHIC DESIGN EDITOR
MAXINE MULVEY
BETTY ZHOU COLUMNISTS
CONNIE KWONG
MIKAELA TENNER
STAFF WRITERS JESSICA CANCHOLA ALEC LAUBE MEGAN GRAMLICH
YOAN VIVAS BARAJAS BEN MARCHMAN ANTONIO CASTILLO LAUREN JOHNSTON ERIC QUINTANAR UPAMANYU LAHIRI Cover Design By Betty Zhou
Layout Design By Angela Su DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 3
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 | WINTER 2016 | 4
CONTACT DPR’s Development Chair Kiana Okhovat at DPRMAGUCD@GMAIL.COM for further information.
A LEADER’S SILENCE The illusion of democracy in Myanmar. BY CONNIE KWONG
L
ast November, the National League for Democracy party in Myanmar won an overwhelming victory by claiming 390 parliamentary seats, or 86 percent of the contested seats. This was the country’s first democratic election since 1990. The NLD’s party leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, is constitutionally barred from serving as president due to her children and late husband holding
British nationality. However, she will hold the bulk of the political power in the country as party leader. Suu Kyi will play an important role in selecting the president and cabinet and setting policy. Suu Kyi’s leadership in the fight for democratization in Myanmar has placed her under several stints of house arrest throughout the last two decades,
won her a Nobel Peace Prize, and ultimately made her a global political icon. However, the idea of an equitable political system in Myanmar is precisely where she drastically fails to uphold the values she campaigned so hard for. The most damning evidence of this is Suu Kyi’s silence regarding the ongoing genocide of the Rohingya ethnic group in Myanmar. As of 2013, 1.3 million DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 5
Rohingyas live in Myanmar. Despite being a Muslim people in a Buddhist-majority nation, they have called the Rakhine state in Myanmar home since the 16th century. A report by the International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School finds that this qualifies the Rohingya as protected under the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Unfortunately, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and many more have all listed the Rohingya among the most persecuted people worldwide. In 1982, the Rohingya were stripped of their citizenship when General Ne Win’s government enforced the Burmese nationality law. Officially, the Myanmar government claims that the Rohingya do not even exist, asserting that they are are just illegal immigrants from Bangladesh - colloquially referred
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 6
to as the “kalar” or “foreigners.” Although Islamophobia is a persistent problem that many
ethnic groups in Myanmar suffer from, the Rohingya case is exceptional. In 2012, after three Muslim men were accused of raping and murdering a young Buddhist Rakhine woman, local Rakhine activists and Buddhist monks bega n distributing inflammatory pamphlets blaming the Rohingya, calling for retribution, raising fear that the Rohingya would otherwise seize control and Islamise the state. Countless acts of violence were launched against the Rohingyas. To address the civil unrest, the
Myanmar government endorsed a segregation policy between Muslims and Buddhists. Police guarded Muslim neighborhoods. Aid workers who showed sympathy for the Rohingya were viewed as suspect, and the All Rakhine Refugee Committee declared that it would refuse any UN or non-governmental organizational aid because it claimed that these agencies were conspiring against the Rakhine people. While thousands of Rohingya have fled Myanmar on human trafficking boats hoping to find refuge in Bangladesh and Malaysia, hundreds of thousands have fallen under the category of “internally displaced persons” in their home country. They are denied basic health care, education, equal job opportunities, and voting rights. The Rohingya are forbidden from tra ve ling w ithout offic ia l permission and are forced to labor in strenuous conditions for military and government projects. Rohingya families are banned from having more than two children and are subject to other population control measures. Currently, an estimated 140,000 Rohingya are currently imprisoned in camps. The same Yale Law School report ultimately concludes that the acts of the Myanmar government, military, police and security forces indeed qualify as genocide. On Feb. 1, Myanmar’s new democratically elected parliament opened session. The parliament still needs to choose a new president and cabinet, and when
the new government fully takes over on March 30, 2016, it will represent a monumental power shift from a right-wing government to a left-wing government. Myanmar is situated to become an increasingly important player in Southeast Asian and world politics, and democratization will certainly augment that. But this means that the rest of the world must take note of its human rights abuses. So far, Suu Kyi’s silence on the the matter (which did not go unnoticed during last fall’s elections) unfortunately suggests that the country’s religious persecution will very likely continue as before. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff has pointed out that this was “clearly a political calculation in a country where anti-Muslim sentiment had been whipped to a fever pitch.” While Suu Kyi has made
efforts to negotiate with the country’s military and armed ethnic groups, these are ultimately political maneuvers that are eclipsed by the humanitarian tragedy of the Rohingya. The hypocrisy of the situation is further underscored by her criticism of the nation’s top general, Min Aung Hlaing, last June, of using his influence over legislators to resist democratic reform. “He’s not elected by the people, so why does he have the right to decide?” she quipped. Regardless of the NLD’s overwhelming victory in a democratic election, the systematic oppression and political disenfranchisement that the Myanmar government has wrought on the Rohingya should warrant raised eyebrows at such a comment. And what’s especially bewildering is that Suu Kyi’s silence has also made her the
target of criticism from NLD supporters, because she has not openly denounced the Rohingya. The party’s primary voter base is primarily made up of the Barmar people, or the Burmese, the largest ethnic group in Myanmar; the ethnic group to which Suu Kyi herself belongs to. If NLD supporters truly believe their party stands for democracy, they are strongly advised to consider the implications of their own prejudice and complicity in this genocide, and whether their nation’s figurehead has actually lived up to her title as a Nobel Peace Prize winner. But more importantly, they should question if both they and Suu Kyi truly understand what it means to live in a multicultural nation under democracy.■
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 7
MEXICO, EL CHAPO, AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT BY YOAN VIVAS-BARAJAS
T
he recent recapture of internationally recognized kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera speaks volumes about the current state of Mexico and how both the domestic and international world perceives the country. The alleged “War on Drugs” has been romanticized around Mexico and has rooted itself in the Mexican corrido culture. Gerardo Ortiz, often recognized as the king of corridos, composed a DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 8
ballad titled “El Primer Ministro” (The Prime Minister) where he pays homage to El Chapo and his first grand escape from prison. Songs such as Ortiz’ glorify a man who was once poor and was able to build an empire that could take on the power of the state. As head of the Sinaloa cartel, El Chapo is respected throughout the region for his monetary contributions to the development of the State of Sinaloa and the surrounding areas.
After rising through the ranks of the international drug trade, El Chapo has managed to garnish a Robin Hood-like reputation. He is recognized for his generous contributions toward infrastructural developments around the state that help the poor and create jobs in a country hit hard by the recession. Although experts on Mexico’s drug trafficking hold him responsible for much of the country’s drug trade, he is highly respected in his home
state after he allegedly kept the drug war under control. The recapture of El Chapo is more of a symbolic victory for President Enrique Pena Nieto’s administration than a tangible one. El Chapo’s two escapes from the nation’s toughest penitentiaries serve as national embarrassments which have stained Mexico’s reputation on the world stage. All while Pena Nieto’s term has focused on rebuilding Mexico’s broken international image and welcoming foreign investment. Both domestic and international media have tarnished the Mexican international reputation by failing to contextualize the War on Drugs. Many around the world associate Mexico as being a narcostate, ridden by gangs with a corrupt government. However, most media outlets have failed to represent the magnitude of these concerns. These issues plague only about 100 out of the 2470 counties in Mexico. To put the level of misinformation into
perspective, the Mexico Citizens Council for Public Security published its yearly list of the most dangerous cities in the world. Of the 50 cities that earned this undesirable distinction, only five Mexican cities made the list. By contrast, Brazil, which doesn’t hold such a negative international reputation when it comes to homicidal rates, had 21 cities on the list. Although crime in Mexico is not as rampant as many perceive it to be, there are still pockets of violent crime, as in any country. Past efforts to curtail drug-related violence include the U.S.sponsored Merida Initiative which provided the Mexican government with more than $1 billion dollars to modernize its military with Black Hawk helicopters, transport aircrafts, and improve Mexico’s telecommunication systems. This did little to reduce violence in Mexico and the ever-growing flow of narcotics into the United States. Instead, this act of
channeling millions of dollars into counterinsurgency efforts seem to be stimulating what many are beginning to call an “arms race” between the cartels and the national government. Cartel leaders feel pressured to act more aggressively to curtail the state’s military efforts. Politicians, specifically in the United States, have made claims that legalizing marijuana in the United States could potentially end the drug war in Mexico. However, this mindset would eliminate the product but not the dealer. With marijuana legalized and regulated in the United States, Mexican cartels would shift the market to more illicit drugs, presumably methamphetamines and cocaine. If marijuana is no longer profitable, cartels will transform their industries already in place to suit the production and distribution of these other potential cash crops. Similarly, it is naive to assume that with El Chapo behind bars, the lives of DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 9
over 120 Mexicans will significantly improve. Jorge Ramos, a highly respected anchor from Univision epitomizes this idea when he claimed that “the death of Osama bin Laden didn’t make it any easier for Obama to govern.” In fact, we saw the deadly campaigns of alQaeda end and the emergence of a more vengeful organization. We can only assume that with the capture of El Chapo, the Mexican government must have dealt a powerful blow to the Sinaloa Cartel, possibly paving the road for the strengthening of other rival cartels, presumably Los Zetas. In order to begin to eliminate the cartel influence in Mexico, both the Mexican and US governments must focus on eliminating the institutions in place that make such a lucrative market possible. How can a joint effort between the US and Mexico eliminate such a profitable market? Economic development seems to be the only feasible answer. Young Mexicans turn to the
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 10
drug trade because there are very little options left in a country decimated by the global recession. Mexico has a comparatively large and energized workforce that many speculate would be a powerful asset in the years to come while other developed nations are burdened with an aging populace. However, the current state of the union has not fully catered to young Mexicans, which makes the drug trade much more appealing to the unemployed. John M. Ackerman, a professor at the Institute of Legal Research at t h e N a ti o na l A ut on o m o u s University of Mexico, proposes the idea that Mexico needs a plan akin to the Marshall Plan. Calling on the idea that Mexico has undergone a devastating war and is now in need of some sort of reconstruction. Ackerman is reinforcing the idea that what Mexico needs is a development plan presumably sponsored by the United States. Currently, the Mexican government is sponsoring its own series of
programs that are meant to stimulate employment in the country. One such program is “Alianza Pyme,” which focuses primarily on small to medium sized business. By providing credit advances at low interest rates, the Mexican government aims to stimulate employment around the country, specifically targeting younger Mexicans. While the Mexican government tried to cast the capture of El Chapo as a significant victory for the country and the war on drugs, it is far from having any long-term effects that will stabilize Mexico. The real victory will come when the government decreases economic inequality and increases g o v e r n m e n t a c c o u nt a b i l i t y . Mexicans will continue to struggle to construct a thriving new economic and political system that caters to all of Mexico by rebuilding the country’s national image and combating the drug cartels.■
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 11
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 12
FORCED MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES? BY JESSICA CANCHOLA
L
ina was born in Yemen and moved to the United States as a toddler, where she led a fairly normal American childhood. She played sports, did community service, and worked a job, but that all changed when Lina turned 21. On a trip to Yemen that she thought was to visit her ailing grandmother, Lina’s parents forced her into marriage. No gun was ever held to her head, no fist was ever laid upon her. But, as Lina told NPR’s Jennifer Ludden last April, she was confined to her relatives’ house and
kept under strict supervision, thus eliminating her chance of running away. Her attempts at contacting the U.S. Embassy by phone and email were also unsuccessful. With her parents’ verbal death threats ringing in her ears, Lina wed, becoming one of the many women, girls, and even boys forced into marriage every year. Tahirih Justice Center, a national nonprofit that provides legal aid to immigrant women facing gender based violence, defines forced marriages as those
which lack the full and free consent of both parties. It’s important to note here that forced marriages are not synonymous with arranged marriages, which can include the element of consent that forced marriages lack. The practice of force d ma rria ge, whic h is particularly prevalent in immigrant families, reveals a concerning cultural disconnect that American government agencies and nonprofit aid organizations have failed to address — a failure that has left thousands of women, girls, and even boys vulnerable to abuse within marriages they never wanted. According to a 2011 Tahirih study, over 3,000 American women and girls have been forced into marriage over the past few years in the United States. Unlike in Lina’s case, many of these marriages occur on American soil. Sometimes, sponsorship for American citizenship is offered to prospective husbands in lieu of dowries, and all too often, brides are wed as young as 13. But the coercion that lead to Lina’s marriage without her consent is an element common to all forced marriages around the world. Pa rents use mul tipl e strategies to coerce their daughters into marriages they believe will shield them from amoral Americanization and ensure their economic stability. Isolation, fraud, and death threats like the sort Lina faced are common, but parents also employ emotional blackmail, psychological manipulation, and multiple forms of violence and abuse. While forced marriages in the United States have common motivations and methods, the practice isn’t specific to families from one religion or region of DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 13
origin. Victims come from Christian, Hindu, and Muslim backgrounds and 56 different countries spanning the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Central America. Despite the basic demographic information we have on victims of forced marriage, Tahirih suspects that there are more victims outside of their estimates. Many victims don’t come forward because they fear the potential ramifications they could face from their family or immigration services. Agencies’ inability to identify cases also makes for low estimates. This failure to detect forced marriages along with an absence of solutions by both public and private organizations has resulted in a profound sense of hopelessness amongst victims. The U.S. legal system simply lacks the necessary laws and programs to detect and address forced marriages. In instances of forced marriages between minors, courts are only concerned with parental consent and often fail to inquire about the consent of the
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 14
minor being married, allowing for forced marriages to occur relatively unquestioned. And in cases where coercion, violence, and abuse appears to be present in marriages involving minors, Child Protective Services often refuses to get involved in order to avoid interfering in ‘cultural issues’. Nongovernmental agencies such as legal groups, religious groups, and domestic abuse shelters have been no more effective in addressing forced marriage. Many organizations lack a working definition of forced marriage and don’t screen for it when women come to their organizations seeking help. And even if they suspect that a client has been forced into marriage or is suffering from abuse in one, many feel that they lack the “appropriate cultural competence” to get involved. It’s admirable that affected government and non-government agencies recognize that understanding the cultures victims of forced marriage come from is necessary to providing them help,
but that’s not an excuse to stay uninvolved. We must find a way to help these victims escape the abuse forced marriage has subjected them to so they can regain the freedom and well-being they’ve lost. To begin addressing the problem of forced marriage, we should look to the United Kingdom as an example. In 2005, the U.K. created a Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) committed to the idea that “forced marriage is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in the U.K..” The unit has taken significant steps to create policy, initiate outreach, and pursue casework to fight existing and future forced marriages. The unit regularly reaches out to both statutory and non-government agencies to help them identify possible forced marriage victims through trainings and literature. The FMU also helps secure funding for smaller charities and groups committed to similar goals. And it works directly with individuals facing forced marriages by giving them advice and preventing unwanted spouses from moving to the U.K.. In some instances, the FMU has even conducted rescue mission for victims being held overseas. It will take time for the United States to build an approach as comprehensive and effective as that of the U.K.. And like with any problem, no silver bullet exists that will solve everything without any drawbacks. But we can’t continue to let the complexity of this problem deter us from finding a solution. Continued inaction is simply unacceptable. ■
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE: THE SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM BY MEGAN GRAMLICH
H
ealth-care reform is an incredibly salient topic in the 2016 presidential election. While many Republican candidates have vowed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Democratic candidates have set out plans to expand or go beyond the Affordable Care Act. So where have we come from, and where should we go from here? According to a study conducted by the Rand Corporation, between Sept. 2013 (before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act) and Feb. 2015, a net total of 16.9 million people gained health insurance. These findings show that the Affordable Care Act has been an
astounding success. Yet, despite this progress, millions of Americans are still uninsured or underinsured. It is morally imperative that we head towards a healthcare system that guarantees healthcare as a right to all people. In particular, we should fight for a single-payer (or Medicare-for-all) system like the one proposed by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Access to healthcare is essential for any individual to pursue his or her full potential. Without healthcare, if an individual becomes sick, he or she is much more likely to stay sick and unable to pursue his or her academic and/or career goals. In this way, access to
healthcare is essential to realizing the American dream. Yet, some argue that individuals should simply have to provide for themselves when it comes to healthcare. They argue that it is the responsibility of the individual to pull himself or herself up by their bootstraps. However, this is not really feasible for most individuals. If one becomes ill while one is striving for economic security, and one doesn’t have access to affordable healthcare, then such illness can seriously impair one’s ability to attain economic mobility at all. Thus, health-care is a necessary prerequisite for economic mobility. The government has a moral DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 15
obligation to ensure that all citizens have access to basic needs for survival because many individuals can find themselves in states of poverty through no fault of their own. Of course, many of these individuals should be expected to strive for economic self-sufficiency. But while they are in the process of attaining economic mobility by furthering their education or searching for good paying jobs, they still have to satisfy basic needs. They need food, water, shelter, and healthcare. Many individuals try to shift the blame on those who cannot afford healthcare, but this is wrong because many individuals find themselves in poverty through birth or through poor economic conditions. Further, those who find themselves in a position where they lack healthcare and who get seriously ill, often find themselves unable to acquire healthcare because they are unable to work and save money. The government has a moral duty to p ro vide fo r its constituents. A central moral principle of our constitution is
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 16
that the government must provide conditions under which “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” can be realized. Access to healthcare is essential for individuals to secure their livelihoods, effectively exercise their liberties, and pursue happiness. Thus, the government has a duty to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare. Many individuals scoff at the prospect of a Medicare-for-all system. They ask, “but how are we going to pay for it?” Yet, the United States is the seventh wealthiest nation in the world. We can, in fact, afford universal healthcare if we truly prioritize it, as we should since healthcare is one of the basic needs for survival. Further, many esteemed Economists argue that the United States. would actually save money by switching to a single-payer system. Political economist, professor, and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich notes that “single-payer systems in other rich nations have proven cheaper than private for-profit health insurers because they don’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing,
executive pay, and billing.” Other countries, such as those in the U.K., have not only demonstrated that single-payer healthcare is possible ; they ha ve a l so demonstrated that it is more costeffective than our system. Gerald F r i e d ma n, a n E c on o m i c s professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whose research was cited by the Wall Street Journal, asserts that under Senator Sander’s health-care plan, the United States would “save nearly $5 trillion over 10 years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.” While many of Senator Sanders’ critics emphasize the fact that his plan includes raising taxes, they neglect to mention that his plan also includes eliminating co-pays and deductibles and that the net savings, both for individual households and for the nation as a whole, is substantial. Further, esteemed economists, corroborate this claim. The United States is currently paying two and a half times the cost of healthcare per person than most other developed nations. Thus, not only is universal health-care coverage ethically necessary, universal healthcare systems are also more cost-effective. It is true that partisan gridlock probably means that a universal healthcare system will probably not be implemented in the United States anytime soon. However, we should still strive to implement this system as we continue to improve our current system. Millions of lives are at stake.■
PRINT ADVERTISING
WEB ADVERTISING
Single Issue Advertisement: • Quarter-page: $25 • Half-page: $45 • Full-page: $65
Box ad (250 pixels x 250 pixels): • 2 weeks: $50 • 1 month: $85 • 3 months: $250
Multi-Issue Advertisement: • Quarter-page: $45 • Half-page: $75 • Full-page: $100
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 17
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS ARE HERE TO STAY BY ALEC LAUBE
C
urrently, as anyone from Southern California probably knows, the owners of the San Diego Chargers are considering relocating the team to Los Angeles. Also, the St. Louis Rams have officially closed a deal with the city of Los Angeles to relocate for the 2016-17 season. Teams have moved from city to city and changed names throughout the history of professional sports. These changes have sparked a need DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 18
to study the effects of having profe ssional sports teams. Research has shown that the economic benefits of professional sports teams are rather negligible, while the cultural benefits can offer great things to local communities. Firstly, the economic benefits of professional sports teams are so minimal that they verge on being hindrances to their cities. According to economists, one reason these benefits are so low is
that new stadiums don’t spur new spending. This is because, for most people, money spent on attending sporting events falls under the entertainment category. The spending in this category is usually a set amount, meaning that money spent on going to a football game at a new stadium is the same money that could have been spent on some other luxury, such as going to the movies or out to dinner. This system does not create
new revenues, but rather shifts money from other markets. On top of that, stadiums tend to push away locals. Instead of creating a roaring new center of activity, many shy away from attending any events in the area. People avoid other local events since sports stadiums tend to be very noisy and the cause of nuisances such as traffic delays. People therefore avoid stadiums during games, which often take place during
peak social hours. All in all, the stadium may raise revenue, but it is revenue that is being siphoned from other markets, and a void is created in the local neighborhoods from pushed away business. The economic benefits simply aren’t there to have a sports team build a stadium in your city. In fact, Victor Matheson, a sports economist at College of the Holy Cross, found that Inglewood, where the Los Angeles Lakers
played prior to the Staples Center, has actually been better off since the Lakers left. Another cost to bear in mind is the cost to the taxpayers. Whenever a team is looking to build a new stadium, the team asks the city to pay for a portion of the cost of construction. This cost can be upwards of half a billion dollars; such was the case in Miami in 2008. In this instance, the city of Miami paid more than $478 million for a new stadium for the Miami Marlins. That’s nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money spent on a stadium that simply won’t provide the economic benefits that one would hope for. On top of that enormous payment, cities offer several tax subsidies to stadiums and teams, which could add an additional $20 million to annual costs. Even with all of these costs, politicians continue to vote in favor of these deals and subsidies. This is because politicians are “afraid” to lose a team while they are in office. The truth is that teams get to choose their cities, but cities do not get to choose their teams, so cities must do what they can to keep teams once they are there. In trying to keep them, cities offer teams hundreds of millions of reasons to stay. These deals are negotiated by the cities and the teams themselves. In some cases, subsidy packages can be drafted and voted on by a state legislature, but they are often finance d by city council resolutions and efforts by the mayor and team owner. If a deal does not get done, the team having worked in “good faith efforts” to complete a deal for a DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 19
stadium in its home market can then apply to the NFL for relocation. There are certainly a lot of costs associated with building a stadium for a team, but there are great cultural benefits as well. Having a sports team to cheer for in a city unites people, since it gives members of the community a commonality. That is what creates our culture and changes how we interact with one another. It’s the same concept as calling ourselves Americans to give ourselves purpose as individuals and as a group. Being a Chargers fan or a Niners fan means that you are part of a group of people that feel the same way you do when the team wins or loses. These intangible benefits, on top of the fear of the political ramifications, are what will keep cities offering so much money for DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 20
teams to come and to stay. Although there aren’t many economic benefits to having a local sports team, the cultural benefits are too great for cities to not do everything they can to keep a team. With the Chargers recent announcement of staying in San Diego for at least one more year, it looks like the city may keep its football team. In the announcement, team chairman Dean Spanos said that he looks forward to having another calendar year to try to come to an agreement for a new stadium. This goes to show that teams consider more than just money when deciding whether or not to relocate. The organizations, including its players, do not always want to leave. Sometimes, like in the Chargers’ case, they want to do what they can to stay in their
hometown. With this decision, the Chargers now have until mid-Jan. 2017 to come to a deal with the city of San Diego for a new stadium. If they do come to an agreement, the Raiders may partner with the Rams in Los Angeles. The people of St. Louis will surely miss having the Rams play there. If San Diego can, it should do everything in its power to keep the Chargers in San Diego — the city simply wouldn’t be the same without the franchise. Not only does the team give the city a greater collective identity, but the rivalry between the Los Angeles Rams and the San Diego Chargers would be great entertainment for the people of Southern California. As the mayor of Los Angeles said, “We'd welcome any team to come here, but I love the idea of a great rivalry to the South.”■
A NOT SO PERFECT WORLD: LGBTQIA RIGHTS IN RUSSIA BY BEN MARCHMAN
I
n June 2013, the Russian Duma passed a highly controversial law that banned the “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relationships.” In Feb. 2014, Russia hosted the Winter Olympics in Sochi, leading to strong public condemnation of their newly imposed draconian LGBTQIA law. In Oct. 2015, members of Russia’s Communist Party attempted to create a new law that would subject those who publicly expressed “unconventional sexual
relationships” to a fine and possibly jail time. Though the proposed bill has as of now been rejected by a Russian Duma committee, it has raised fears in Russian LGBTQIA communities that worse is yet to come. Celebrities tweeted and the White House boycotted the Sochi Olympics, but nothing else seemed to happen. A look at State Department press releases during June and July 2013 show no official criticism of the law. This is an unusual contradiction from an
administration that has been fairly progressive on LGBTQIA rights around the world. As experts and commentators alike have pointed out, LGBTQIA rights have become the new ideological dividing line between East and West. This line suggests a more involved U.S. foreign policy in the sphere of LGBTQIA rights; yet, when it comes to Russia, the United States seems oddly silent. The passing of the antiLGBTQIA propaganda law in Russia was widely supported by DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 21
the public, but the reasons for this support are illusory. In an article titled “The Politics of Pride: The LGBT Movement and Post-Soviet Democracy,” author Alice Underwood explores this very question, examining the history of Russian LGBTQIA pride and its local denunciation. Underwood argues that the silence surrounding sexuality and the fear of identity-based organization continue to propagate hatred toward LGBTQIA individuals. For many, however, the deeper fear is not of LGBTQIA individuals themselves, but rather the supposed immorality of Western sexuality. In fact, at the time of the law’s passing, one Russian deputy described the law as a protective barrier against the potential destruction of Russia’s “fundamental cultural codes.” In one aspect, the anti-LGTBQIA propaganda law seems merely a legitimization of the fears of the Russian people. Yet the law is not meant to protect the foundations of Russian society, but rather to politicize its ideals. Rather than protect the hearts and minds of Russian children, and secure sound morality for future generations, the Russian government i s u sing the LGBTQIA community as a scapegoat. The Kremlin is not protecting Russian morality — it is crafting a new morality strategically opposed to Western ideas. As Thomas De Waal of the Carnegie Endowment wondered: “Who could have guessed that the big ideological dividing line Russian ideologists are drawing between East and West would be homosexuality?” DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 22
On the other side of this East -West ideological line is the United States, which, under the Obama Administration, has successfully placed LGBTQIA rights in U.S. foreign policy agenda. In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted that: “Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights, once and for all.” This decisive stance of the United States broadened the issue of LGBTQIA rights from the domestic stage to the
international. The Obama Administration has made it clear that it intends to protect the rights of LGBTQIA individuals around the globe by working through U.S. embassies and with international partners. Elias Groll of Foreign Policy magazine points out that, while the Obama Administration has made several high-profile speeches indicating the centrality of LGBTQIA rights to U.S. foreign policy, the reality is far less rosy. There has been very little
shift in public opinion on LGBTQIA rights in Russia, and it a ppe ars tha t the Oba ma Administration is using its resources more selectively, with far less public support. There seems to be little if any overt action by the United States to address Russian homophobia. In a perfect world, this article would end with a powerful call to action for the United States to refocus its priorities and bring
attention to Russian persecution of LGBTQIA persons. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and the United States has found itself in a very precarious situation. The Kremlin has shaped the debate in Russia beyond that of morality, reframing it as a battle between the very foundations of Russian society and Western values. In this ideological battleground designed by the Kremlin there can be no way for
the United States to win. If the United States outrightly supports LGBTQIA groups in Russia, then it has already lost the battle of public opinion. Doing so would support Russians’ belief that the Western powers wish to install a new moral code on the Russian state. However, if the United States does nothing, the rights and safety of LGBTQIA people in Russia will be threatened. Violence against LGBTQIA people remains rampant in Russia, and will continue to be unless the international community takes a stance. However standing in opposition may require a reframing of the debate. James Kirchick of Foreign Policy suggests we reinterpret the law as not as targeting solely LGBTQIA people, but as limiting the freedom of all Russians. The law’s wording remains vague as to what constitutes “propaganda”, which can easily lead to abuse of the law. While this approach may seem like a cop-out, it reshapes the discussion into something more familiar to the Russian people. Ideally, the United States could easily change the outlooks of people to protect human rights, but we do not live in such a perfect world. Instead, we must content ourselves with waging an uphill battle, protecting those we can, and accepting that the world is not right and wrong, black and white, and easy to define, but rather an ideological minefield that we must carefully navigate towards a better future.■
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 23
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 24
EXECUTIVE ACTION INTRIGUE: The fate of President Obama’s immigration directives. BY AIDAN COYNE
I
n 2014, President Obama, continually frustrated by partisan gridlock stemming from Republican control of both House and Senate, announced a change in the enforcement of immigration per the executive branch’s ability to direct the actions of federal agencies. For some conservatives, however, these actions stretched beyond the usual purview of presidents to shape the priorities of
agencies and amounted instead to a fundamental alteration of the original law which the president is bound to enforce. And thus, the scene was set for the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a challenge to the action’s legitimacy. Beyond the dry facts and legal considerations which will first and foremost decide the fate of Obama’s directives, there are several other facets to the case of
interest to all Americans. First, there is the gravity of the issue of immigration itself. 2015 was, amongst other things, a year in which the topic of immigration whipped up public passion and discourse like few other political subjects, as the rise of Donald Trump attests to. By now, all informed readers will know the essential elements of arguments either pro or con; these vary from DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 25
the practical (the necessity of immigrant labor in various fields versus drains on public resources) to the abstract (the fairness of rewarding illegal actions versus the inhumanity of mass deportation in the face of a broken system). Regardless of where one stands on the persuasiveness of these arguments, the importance of the president’s actions cannot be downplayed. Under Obama’s order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement will move to deport individuals chiefly with criminal records, or in other words, “felons not families”. Presumably the alternative approach is to equally prioritize the deportation of all undocumented individuals within the United States, which would leave approximately 11 million people hanging in the lurch and living in the shadows. Further still, the case will be a litmus test for future executive action. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has highlighted her intentions to aggressively use
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 26
executive commands as a way of working around an incalcitrant Congress. The Supreme Court, infamously composed of four stalwart conservatives and liberals and one right-leaning swing vote in Justice Anthony Kennedy, now has the possibility of severely limiting this strategy going forward. This may prove immensely consequential given the likely makeup of Congress in the future: the Republican frontrunner Trump trails the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls and Republicans have strong grips on both the House and Senate. The U.S. government may continue to be paralyzed by partisan gamesmanship and political polarization if the Supreme Court strikes down Obama’s executive order. Now that the situation has been laid bare, what can we make of it? First off, regardless of one’s political affiliation, there are reasons to be wary of the
increasing use of executive power. In two consecutive political administrations, of both major political parties, presidents have shown increasing willingness to get their way by means of the power of the executive branch alone. But more fundamentally, this shows the deep disorder and brokenness of the American political system writ large. The American political system, of Enlightenment origin and the object of enduring national pride, has functioned decently well in guiding the fledgling state since its inception. But given the specter of future inaction in the face of a swiftly changing world, perhaps it is time to introduce electoral reforms, which reward greater party intra-discipline, more political parties, and greater party cooperation. And what of the case itself? Well, in an apolitical world where all decisions are based on facts, rationales, and pure logic, the Court should rule in favor the administration. The ICE has quite a substantial task ahead of it to even deport the individuals targeted by Obama, let alone the monumental task of potentially deporting the entire population of undocumented individuals. Given this circumstance, it seems quite reasonable that the executive bra nch, w hic h is ri g htly responsible for setting the overarching policies and methods for federal agencies, prioritizes the task of ICE to optimize its efficiency. I rather suspect, however, that we do not live in a purely rational world and so an intriguing argument lays ahead in America’s highest court.■
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 27
FACES OF DPR Aidan Coyne is a fourth-year Political Science and Economics double major from Walnut Creek, CA, and the National Section Editor for DPR. Alec Laube is a third-year Political Science major from Ridgecrest, CA, and a State Staff Writer for DPR. Antonio Castillo is a second-year History major from Oakland, CA and a State Staff Writer for DPR. Angela Su is a second-year Economics and English double major from Santa Clara, CA and the co-Editor in Chief of DPR. Ben Marchman is a fourth-year International Relations major from La Crescenta, CA, and an International Staff Writer for Betty Zhou is a third-year Design and Communications double major from Pleasanton, CA, and the Graphic Design Editor for DPR. Connie Kwong is a fourth-year International Relations and Economics double major and History minor from San Jose, CA, and the author of DPR’s The Golden State column. Cynthia Murillo is a fourth-year Economics, International Relations, and Spanish triple major from Mezquitic, Jal. Mexico, and the Chief of Staff for DPR. Danielle Damper is a third-year Political Science: Public Service major and History minor from San Diego, CA, and the State Section Editor for DPR. Jason Cox is a fifth-year Statistics major and Economics minor, from Antioch, CA. He serves as DPR’s Chief Financial Officer.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 28
Jessica Canchola is a fourth-year International Relations major from Chico, CA, and an International Staff Writer for DPR. Kailee Dahan is a fourth-year History and Psychology double major from Woodland Hills, CA, and the International Section Editor for DPR. Kristine Craig is a fourth-year Political Science and Economics double major from San Ramon, CA, and the Editor-in-Chief of DPR. Kiana Okhovat is a second-year Political Science– Public Service major and Middle Eastern History minor from Granite Bay, CA and the Development Chair for DPR. Megan Gramlich is a fourth-year Political Science and Philosophy double major, and Professional Writing minor from San Diego, CA. She serves as a National Staff Writer for DPR. Mikaela Tenner is a fourth-year Political Science and International Relations double major, and Professional Writing minor from Los Angeles, CA. She is the author of DPR’s The Middle East Eye column.
Maxine Mulvey is a second-year English major from Poway, CA, and the Copy Editor for DPR. Tanvi Varma is a fourth-year Economics major from San Jose, CA, and the Publicity Chair for DPR.
Yoan Vivas Barajas is a third-year International Relations major from Delhi, CA and an International Staff Writer for DPR.
Not pictured: Lauren Johnston, National Staff Writer. Eric Quintanar, National Staff Writer. Upamanyu Lahiri, International Staff Writer. DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 29
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
Review inform and educate students about
asked by Founder and Former Editor-in-
meaningful political issues they may not have
Chief Alex E. Tavlian in October 2012: “Are
paid attention to otherwise. While the
there any UCD Political Science majors
editorial board of our publication remains
interested in starting a political commentary
nonpartisan, each writer is encouraged to
magazine?” The first editorial board was
take a distinct viewpoint in crafting opinion
elected and the publication was formed on
pieces published daily online.
December 5, 2012. In late April, the Davis Political Review launched its website and
After restructuring and condensing the
released its first print issue on the Davis
makeup of the publication, the Davis
campus.
Political Review now consists of a 20member staff that is completely student run.
After a four-month rest period, the Davis
The dedicated writers, editors and board
Political Review was reestablished by current
members of the Davis Political Review make
Editor-in-Chief Kristine Craig, in January
it possible to achieve our mission: engaging
2014.
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 weekly online articles and a quarterly printed publication, writers of the Davis Political
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 30
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 Kiana Okhovat at DPRMAGUCD@GMAIL.COM for further information.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 31
© DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW 2016 DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | WINTER 2016 | 32
Vox Populi Vox Dei