MASTHEAD
EDITOR IN CHIEF ANGELA SU EDITORIAL BOARD GLOBE
NATION
STATE
YOAN VIVAS-BARAJAS
CALEB BALDWIN
ITAMAR WAKSMAN
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
CHIEF OF STAFF
HYUN KANG
ERIC QUINTANAR
DEVELOPMENT CHAIR
COPY EDITOR
MICAH LESCH
LEO BURKE
STAFF WRITERS ANTONIO CASTILLO
MICAH LESCH
LAUREN JOHNSTON
ETHAN KHOE
UPAMANYU LAHIRI
SIERRA LEWANDOWSKI
MALENA HANSEN
MILO KAHNEY
GRANT BONHAM
ADRIAN LOPEZ
KIAN RAHIMNEJAD
JACOB GANZ
RAJITMEET SINGH
SERAPHIM SPARROW
ATANAS SPASOV
HUGO RIOS
Cover design by Adrian Lopez. 2
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
CONTENTS | WINTER 2017
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW 4
The UC’s Balancing Gap: Rising Costs and Foreign Students By Grant Bonham
8
The Death of the Two-State Solution By Itamar Waksman
12
The Conundrum of American Health Care
By Malena Hansen
16
Dianne Feinstein: A California Icon By Jacob Ganz
19
The Rise of the Far-Right By Sierra Lewandowski
22
Up in Smoke: The Future of Legal Marijuana By Milo Kahney
26
The Inescapable Ideological Lens By Eric Quintanar
Layout design by Angela Su.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
3
THE UC’S BALANCING ACT How will a cap on international students affect rising costs?
BY GRANT BONHAM
A
t the beginning of March, in an attempt to please state lawmakers and California residents, the Regents of the University of California moved to cap the number of nonresidents allowed admission to UC campuses. Insisting that nonresidents are taking spots from Californian students, the state government threatened to withhold funding from the UC system until the regents capped nonresident admission. In response, the regents insisted that the permanent solution to the rise in nonresidents was a 20 percent cap on nonresident students at most UC campuses. The exceptions are Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego, where nonresidents already exceed 20 percent and will be capped at their current proportions. The move to cap nonresident admissions comes when xenophobia and hostility towards foreigners is experiencing a recent boom, strummed up by an increasingly nationalist president. While this policy is not a likely byproduct of xenophobia, it nevertheless puts more pressure on a community of international students that are facing increased hostility. This change in policy ultimately reflects the collision of Californians demanding more seats for resident students and the UC system not having enough funding to 4
continue to grow. The vast options within the UC system, and the prestige of each school, makes the UCs an attractive option for students across the country and around the world. The UC system ranks 8th in the United States by size and number of students with a total enrollment of around 270,000 students. Multiple UCs rank high across national and international rankings, which attracts students around the world. This global reputation gives our student body a diversity unseen in most communities; 19 percent of students are international (13 percent) or from out of state (6 percent). But the UC system is not alone in its size or its number of international students. The University of Texas system, which ranks 10th in size, enrolls around 10 percent of their freshman class as either out-of-state (7 percent) or international students (3 percent). Similarly, the University of Ohio system, the second largest higher education system in the United States, admitted 33 percent of their incoming freshmen as either international (11 percent) or out-of-state (22 percent) students. While neither of these school systems have established caps, the size of their nonresident student populations is large and have grown rapidly
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
since 2000. On top of that, though the University of Texas is similar in size to the UC system, the University of Texas system has a much smaller operating budget, $17 billion, when compared to the UC’s $28.6 billion operating budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year. However, this disparity does not provide a complete picture for the costs of running the University of California's system. It may be tempting to say that wasteful spending requires greater funding and that cuts need to be made, but this is inaccurate. The $10 billion disparity is most likely associated with the rising cost of operating in California. Wages, property, construction and other services all cost much more in California, and thus attributing the inflated budget to wasteful spending is short-sighted. After comparing the UC system to other university systems that have no official caps, this raises the question: What has an increased level of out-of-state and international students done for the average Californian student trying to get into a top-tier UC? The answer depends on who you ask. In a report in early 2016, the California State Auditor's office looked at the rise of nonresident students. Contrary to what the UC President Janet Napolitano said at the time, the
auditor concluded that the number of nonresident students was harming Californians’ chances of getting into the UCs. While nonresident tuition rose sharply, resident tuition rose much less. The state auditor’s report put direct pressure on Napolitano, who denounced the audit, saying that the international students helped the UC system enroll more residents. The primary defense of the rise of nonresident students was that by receiving their extra tuition, the UCs were able to open their doors to many more California residents that would have been turned away due to lack of funding. Both of these sides are accurate in their reporting and are credible in their own right. International students at UC Davis pay on average $41,000 in tuition, but residents only pay $14,000 on average. With almost $25,000 more to spend to attend a UC, international students pay a steep price for their education. For a four-year degree, the average international student can expect to pay almost $100,000 more than their in-state counterparts. Financial aid plays a part in this, but a majority of the financial aid that is disbursed through the UC system comes from resident-only programs such as the Middle-Class Scholarship and the Blue and Gold Opportunity Program. Many nonresidents receive little in the way of need-based financial aid and compete equally with California residents for merit-based financial aid, clearly demonstrating that no advantage is given to nonresidents.
International students already have a large burden regarding their tuition. The high cost of tuition is only one part of the daily challenges international students must deal with. Assimilation and large initial education disparities in teaching style can make being an international student more challenging compared to residents, never mind that international students are away from home. But the struggle that each of these students faces also brings value to the communities on our UC campuses. By adding unique international backgrounds, we experience different perspectives and new ideas that a homogenous community of only California residents could never create. The inherent diversity on UC campus is why the UC system is so highly ranked and continues to grow. But this appreciation for international students no way to says that the nonresident cap is intentionally destructive to these students or was designed to hinder the diversity of our student body. The nonresident cap is being brought to the table to as
a pragmatic solution to please Californians that want more residents enrolled at their campuses. Simultaneously, the University of California cannot fund more resident students without an increase in revenue. However pragmatic this solution is, it is entirely shortsighted. Capping students with a fixed percentage at any level immediately tells the student body that the UC System is unable to provide individual appreciation for their students’ merits and denies students simply based on where they were born. Not only is this an archaic quota system, it simply will not work if the state wants the best and brightest to attend our schools. A comprehensive solution is needed for this problem, and the state of California placed ridiculous demands on the UC system without giving them proper funding. Over the last 15 years, the percentage of per-student funding that has come from the state has decreased dramatically. In 1990, the state funded almost 80 percent of each student’s cost of
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
5
education, but today the state funds only 40 percent, meaning each student pays more tuition now than ever before. Put another way, students in 1990 paid 12 percent of their total cost of tuition, while today that students pay close to 40 percent. The state mandating that the UCs cut their revenue while also withholding funds until they do places a ridiculous burden on the UCs and the students. If the state wants more California residents to be admitted to UCs, then the state needs to provide more funding, rather than deciding that funding more residents is not something they are willing to commit to. This is not as complicated as state lawmakers are making it seem. Every year for the past 15 years, tuition has increased and made up a larger and larger portion of the UCs’ operating revenue. By discouraging the UCs from admitting more nonresident students, the state is saying that even more money must
6
come from students, students who are increasingly unable to pay for college. If state lawmakers truly cared about California residents, they would be able to find the funding in other ways. The division between state lawmakers and the University of California is making students pay more in tuition, which will ultimately hurt the poor in favor of wealthier California residents. Along with the cap, the UC system is instituting a 3 to 4 percent increase in tuition to better fund the universities in the face of increased costs. Tuition at UCs has tripled over the last 20 years, which has made college inaccessible to those without wealth or solid financial aid. The most recent tuition hike is no different than the rest and will hit the poorest California residents the hardest, which is why tuition hikes and nonresident caps make no sense for the average Californian. Is the increased likelihood of attending a UC worth it if it
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
means many prospective students can no longer afford it? The demand of California lawmakers show where their interests lie: with wealthy Californians who will be unaffected by increasing tuition. If poorer Californians are even now unable to attend college because of increasing costs, then this cap has failed to increase access to California residents. This policy will not only increase discrimination against nonresidents but will ultimately discriminate against the poorest Californians who are unable to access a public university with rapidly rising tuition. Capping foreign admissions and raising tuition will hurt Californians more than it will help them. If lawmakers cared about the needs of the universities or their poorer constituents, then this policy would never even be proposed. State funding for the UCs has dropped year after year, and the state’s lack of allocating new funds to universities will unequally hurt poor residents. If we continue to adopt legislation that benefits the rich more than the poor, then we are no better than those who currently head our federal government. This policy will prove whether California lawmakers are committed to progressive ideals and ultimately reveal who lawmakers favor in this state. â–
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)
CONTACT DPR’s Development Chair Micah Lesch at DPRMAGUCD@GMAIL.COM for further information.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
7
MIDDLE EAST EYE
THE DEATH OF THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION BY ITAMAR WAKSMAN
J
ust two days after the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, Israel announced its plans to build an additional 600 settler units in East Jerusalem, again inflaming tensions and calling the future of the IsraeliPalestinian peace process into question. When asked to comment on the new settlement plans, Deputy Mayor of Jerusa8
lem Meir Turgeman said, “Now we can build,” demonstrating the shifts in settlement policy expected to come with the new U.S. presidential administration. While President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were unequivocally opposed to increased settlements, Israeli policymakers believe that the Trump administration will take a more lax approach towards the subject,
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
instead prioritizing good relations between the U.S. and Israel and avoiding at all costs the confrontational relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. While originally claiming that he would be “sort of a neutral guy” in relation to the conflict, even claiming that the likelihood of a final agreement being struck relied heavily on “Israel
and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal – whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.” However, later in the campaign, Trump did a complete about-face, throwing himself totally and unconditionally behind Israel. At last year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, an important event hosted by one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, Trump stated that “the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one” of his administration, slandered the Iran deal, and promised to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. This complete shift in Israel policy came after the realization that once Trump won the Republican nomination, the funding of his presidential campaign would require strong financial backing from Jewish elites like Sheldon Adelson, an extreme right, wealthy activist who funds AIPAC and Jewish settlements. Trump did what most American politicians do: he kowtowed to the rightwing Zionist interests of the Jewish-American elites to secure his political future. There is no way to overlook the carnage of the settlement program, its incredible growth, and the occupation of the West Bank. In 1995, at the signing of the Oslo Accords laying the groundwork for a final peace plan, there were fewer than 100,00 settlers living in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Today, that number has reached almost 350,000. As these settlements have grown, the West
Bank, the supposed future Palestinian state, has fractured. As settlements have grown, so has the infrastructure needed to accommodate them. In the last few decades, a multitude of roads have been constructed by the Israeli government throughout the region, reaching into the very heart of the West Bank. This construction has left Palestinian communities isolated, as Palestinians are not able to use or cross these roads, making them impenetrable barriers in the daily lives of Palestinians. Additionally, more and more land has been taken by settlers, many times illegally. Area C of the Oslo Accords, which is the territory that is left out of the Palestinian Authority’s control, has been picked away and continuously forfeited to Jewish settlements and outposts. Palestinians know the story too well: one day a Jew will come to their land in order to conduct an archeological dig and that person will often find evidence of ancient Jewish habitation, considering the history of the region (ignoring the evi-
dence of continual habitation by Palestinians and their ancestors). After this find, a group of settlers will come claiming they are retaking the land for the Jewish community. This new outpost may be illegal and even destroyed numerous times by Israeli authorities, but eventually Israel will let up and codify the settlement, providing it with security, social services, and infrastructure. Palestinians are finding themselves in a situation where they live under military rule with grim economic prospects, no political or civil rights, and less and less habitable land. Mainstream Israeli society, as a whole, is opposed to the settlements and supports the two -state solution. A 2014 study found that 51 percent of Israelis believe the settlement program negatively affects ties with the United States, and 40 percent of Israelis believe that the settlements are a waste of resources. Fifty-one percent believe a full or partial disengagement from the West Bank would be ideal.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
9
However, even though Israeli public opinion is divided, the Israeli political system and state apparatus have either fully supported the settlement program or stood by as bystanders. Similar to the United States today, Israeli society is divided. On one hand are the secular Israeli Jews, who live in progressive urban areas like Tel Aviv and see no connection between their society and way of life and the settlement program. They want to continue to be liberal, progressive and secular people and do not support right-wing religious Zionism. Another segment is the moderate right, also living in urban, but more conservative, areas. Many of these people are of North African Sephardic, Middle Eastern or recent Russian émigré descent, remembering the extraordinary conditions and suppression that forced their parents and grandparents to flee to Israel. These people value the security of Israel above everything else and see the policies of the left, which are perceived as “soft” against the Palestinians, as dangerous for the future of Israel. Finally, there are the right-wing and religious Zionists. The more secular portion of the group believes more settlements and the eventual annexation of the West Bank will enhance Israeli security. The religious segment believes that because in the Tanach, the Jewish bible, God promises the Jewish people the land that today lies within the West Bank, they have a religious obligation to return to that land and once again inhabit it. This segment of Israeli society 10
has used the structure of Israeli politics to hijack the entire system, forcing Israeli politicians to favor their demands over the opinions of national and international public opinion. Because of Israel’s proportional representation, parliamentary electoral system and 2 percent electoral threshold, many minor, extreme parties have representation within the Knesset, Israel’s legislature. The current coalition that puts Netanyahu and his moderate-right Likud party into power is only possible with the right-wing Zionist parties, such as The Jewish Home and Yisrael Beiteinu, who help maintain the 61 seats needed to form a government. This gives the extreme right powerful leverage within the political system. The left today poses no challenge to the right-wing end of the Israeli political spectrum; the left is in its greatest state of disarray and weakness since the founding of Israel. Because it is only the right that can currently form a government, and that government relies on the support of fringe, extreme -right parties, the right-wing Zionists are able to force their policies through a system that mostly disagrees with them. This has allowed the settlement program to continue, as well as increasing security and financial support for the settlements. Settlers today receive almost double the state funding than typical Israelis within the 1967 borders – the internationally recognized portion of Israel – receive, including far higher funding for education, infrastructure, and other government
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
services. Additionally, the power of Israel’s extreme right is so great that there is no end in sight for their policies. Israeli society has almost accepted that settlements and unequal funding will continue, and Jewish-American elites are still lining up to fund additional growth. Where does Israel and the international community’s promise of a two-state solution go from here? It is clear that settlements are one of the most difficult impediments to peace and are the tool the extreme right uses to eventually annex all of the West Bank. Right-wing factions know that Israeli society is currently opposed to annexation because of the international ramifications and security concerns that will arise from inflaming tensions. Their plan is simple: to slowly but steadily expand the settlements to the point where removing settlements deep within the West Bank is impossible, forcing annexation. Israeli society remembers the 2006 unilateral disengagement from Gaza. At that time, 8,000 Israeli settlers had to be forced from their homes, resulting in waves of protests and skirmishes between Israeli security forces and settlers. In a future where perhaps 200,000 or more settlers live in territories that will surely become part of what would be the Palestinian state, the extreme right is hoping that Israeli society will be unwilling to remove such a great number of people with such strong political and financial support. They hope that at that moment they can force Israel into
annexation and finally realize their dream of Greater Israel: an Israel closer to the borders delineated in the Tanach. The question that will remain is, what will Israel do about the 2.2 million Palestinians living in the West Bank? Will they be forced into secondclass citizenship, effectively turning Israel into an apartheid state? Or will they give them permanent residence status, similar to Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, allowing them equal rights before the law but politically disenfranchising them to maintain the Jewish electoral majority? Either scenario means Palestinian society loses and will surely result in outrage from the wider international community and especially the Arab world. It is time to bring the impetus of action onto Israeli society. The Israeli left, diminished by a lack of leadership and coherent policy, has an obligation to counter the interests of the extreme right. The moderate right will not stop the extreme faction: they would rather maintain their power, turning a blind eye to the long -term goals of their political allies. Moderate Israeli society cannot continue to live in their urban centers, centered on technology, and ignore what is going on due to their defeatist attitude. In 2011, hundreds of thousands of Israelis protested for social justice, asking for government action to tackle the rising cost of living that threatened the Israeli middle class. It is clear that this moderate, secular faction of Israeli society has the power to have their voice heard. They
must once again, with sober eyes, realize the tragedy befalling the Palestinian people: that an Israel that annexes the West Bank will be unrecognizable, and that if they want to ensure the continued security and political sustainability of Israel, they must fight to end the settlement program and push for a two-state solution. The prospects of peace seem especially grim at the moment. There is no end in sight to the right’s political dominance and the settlement program is continuously supported by the Likud-led government. It is becoming increasingly likely that annexation will occur and the promise of Palestinian statehood will end. But what Israeli society has forgotten is that this also threatens the very fabric of the Israeli project, the JewishDemocratic state. In Secretary of State Kerry’s final address on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, coming after the U.S. withheld its United Nations Security Council veto of a resolution denouncing settlements, Kerry said that he and President Obama opposed the settlements and criticism of Israel not because they did not value Israel as an ally and friend, but because of their love for Israel and the Jewish-Democratic state and their fear that Israel was unknowingly destroying its most basic and fundamental basis. If annexation occurs and the Palestinians become second-class citizens, the dream of a democratic Israel is over. If it occurs and Palestinians are given full rights, the Jewish majoritarian identity of Israel is at stake. The annexation of
the West Bank will signal the end of Israel, the great project of the Jewish people, forged in the blood and sacrifice of a nation that had almost suffered extermination. Israelis must realize that it will take extremely difficult sacrifices, such as more land-swaps and allowing Palestinians to hold a standing military, to be able to reach the prospect of a stable, lasting peace. Israel must first gesture toward the world that it is serious about peace, and no action will demonstrate this more than the absolute and total end of new settlement construction. Jewish people are raised on the idea of Tikkun Olam, which means that we must act for the sake of social justice, which contradicts the actions of the state of Israel. While Israelis and Jews are not synonymous, as long as Jewish people throughout the world ignore the tragedy occurring within the West Bank as a result of the policies of the state of Israel, we are contradicting the ethical basis upon which our people are built. It is time to return to our roots and commit ourselves and the nation of Israel back towards the goal of remedying injustices and advancing the world. This starts with a renewed commitment to the peace process. â–
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
11
THE CONUNDRUM OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE BY MALENA HANSEN
O
ver the past century, each presidential election cycle has featured a candidate who has championed a specific issue that has shaped the politics of that era. Healthcare reform recurs often and impacts individuals and corporations in many different respects, from personal health problems to broad economic concerns. There have been countless attempts to reconstruct the complex health care system in the past several decades: from the failed Clinton 12
health care reform, to the rollout of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), to the pending Re publican sponsored health care bill, the issue of health insurance has garnered attention in the national sphere. However, throughout the 2016 presidential primaries and election, the Republican party has focused on an oversimplified model of health care while drawing attention away from specific policy proposals, such as the plan they have to repeal and replace
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
the legislation, needed to back their stance. Now, congressional Republicans struggle to implement their newly revealed health care plan, which would replace the Obama administration’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The public reaction to the new health care bill has revealed the compromising position the Republican party is in as it struggles to preserve the competing ideals of the conventionally conservative Republican elite and the rising populist neo-
conservative base. The Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, has stimulated significant positive results to its beneficiaries, yet public opinion about the program is overwhelmly negative. The evidence in a New York Times analysis found that “the first full year of the ACA brought historic increases in coverage for low-wage workers.” Provisions included in Obamacare, such as the individual and employer mandates, which require citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, have been effective at ensuring coverage. The mandates establish a risk pool in which people who have been denied healthcare coverage because of a pre-existing condition can buy health insurance where the premiums are capped at a threshold to ensure the affordability of the plan. Additionally, the Los Angeles Times reports growth rates of premiums and out-of-pocket costs for family coverage plans have reduced, which indicates how efficient ACA is. The specific measures mentioned, as well as several more included in the ACA, have ensured that 16.4 million people, who would not have otherwise had it, now have the health insurance they need to obtain treatment. However, the Republican party, especially in the most recent presidential election, has intently misconstrued the facts to control public perception of the issue to gain leverage with their supporters. The Republican establishment has focused entirely
on the negative aspects of the ACA, such when Mike Pence stated that “Americans are struggling. [Obamacare] is failing while we speak. We need to reverse the damage.” This type of rhetoric culminated in the election of populist conservative candidate Donald J. Trump, who has reiterated the “repeal and replace” slogan that the Republican party has championed. The Republican Party’s claims that Obamacare is a disastrous policy are believed to have arisen from the populist base of the Republican party, yet the party elite has most likely manipulated the claims to alter the economic market of health care to fit their interests. Regardless, the general public has mixed feelings about the Affordable Care Act, which has paved the way for the legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare. With a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and without the threat of a veto, the Republican party has introduced a new health care plan to replace ACA. In the first week of March 2017, House Bill 1275 was introduced by the Republican majority in the House. The bill, which is called the “American health care Reform Act of 2017,” or the ACHA, retains the parts of Obamacare that have functioned optimally and disposes of the elements that the Republican party does not like to create a more privatized health care market. According to the New York Times, the bill’s main provisions repeal both the individual and employer
mandates, cuts Medicaid funding at the state level, and implements of a new system of tax credits to encourage citizens to purchase plans on the open market. The bill highlights the budgetary concerns regarding the repeal of Obamacare and lays out measures intended to make the health care market more competitive. Overall, the bill aims to do as all health care legislation does: create a sustainable market for affordable health care available to the American public. Yet there are notable differences between the techniques and motivations employed by ACA and ACHA to achieve this goal, which is why there remains a raging debate over what is the best solution. Objections to this bill come from both sides of the aisle, defining where party lines are drawn and questioning how the new health care plan will serve the interests of those it is intended to aid. Liberal factions have begun to rally against the new legislation. Democrats in key committees, such as the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have begun to use procedural methods that waste time to block
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
13
the “fast-track” path of the impending legislation. There has also been increased resistance from left-leaning moderate interest groups such as the American Association for Retired Persons, the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association. These interest groups have powerful lobbies which historically have been effective at using both outsider and insider strategies to ensure that favored provisions in the ACA remain in place. The reaction from the left was expected, and the Republican party must account for the backlash and consider whether they will alter certain provisions in the ACHA for its successful passage. In addition to the anticipated resistance from the left, many far-right groups have opposed the bill. According to Politico, Club for Growth, a farright wing interest group, has released a statement of intent to oppose ACHA. The far right has consistently pulled the Republican party further to the right, and the issue of health care will be another chance to lobby legislators to uphold right-wing values, such as the free market and deregulation of the national health care market. Additionally, governors whose states have expanded Medicaid through Obamacare will likely rally against the new reforms of the AHCA to keep Medicaid funding in their state. This introduces conflict between states’ rights neo-conservative Republicans, who want to delegate power to lower levels of government, and the traditional conservative, who wants to set 14
deregulatory policy at the national level to ensure a free market. The new GOP health care plan reveals both the divisiveness in the legislative branch and the dichotomy within the Republican party, which must be reconciled to pass the ACHA. The backlash has also manifested at town halls, or public forums where congressional representatives meet with their constituents to discuss salient issues. Many citizens have appealed directly to their representatives by sharing personal accounts of how the Affordable Care Act has saved their life or the lives of their loved ones. These constituents range from liberal Democrats to lower-class conservatives who benefit from the cost-effective health plans that Obamacare offers. The town hall meetings evidence the disillusionment of the base of the Republican party by bringing to light those who benefit from the provisions that Obamacare offers and whose lives would be on the line if it were repealed. The problems can be tied back to the Republican party’s miscommunication of the actual policy components of Obamacare to leverage their own plan. Continued grassroots pressure will likely influence legislators’ actions when they draft a bill in the Senate and, eventually, vote on the the entirety of the ACHA. Ultimately, the roots of the current health care policy issue can be traced back to the presidential race, which illustrates how misconstruing ideas has political consequences, as exempli-
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
fied in the populist rhetoric of the Trump campaign, which emphasized broad stances on issues without considering the process required to implement the policy. With the emergence of the ACHA, the Republicans must quickly push their new plan through Congress to satisfy their supporters. However, the Republicans frantically pushing their new healthcare legislation indicates their urgency to get rid of the current status quo under ACA. There has already been public speculation and backlash against the new proposal, but it remains to be seen how the success or failure of the ACHA will affect future policy-making regarding complex systems such as health care. ■
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
15
A CALIFORNIA ICON A look back at Dianne Feinstein’s 25 years of service in the Senate.
BY JACOB GANZ
D
ianne Feinstein’s life changed on Nov. 27, 1978. On that fateful Monday, Feinstein heard gunshots and rushed into Supervisor Harvey Milk’s office at City Hall in San Francisco, only to find him bleeding on the ground. She reached down and attempted to feel his pulse, but instead her finger sank into a bullet wound. She quickly learned that former Supervisor Dan White was the prime suspect, and that he had also shot Mayor Moscone. That 16
meant that, as the president of the board of supervisors, Dianne Feinstein was now mayor of San Francisco. Her world had been turned upside down by a gun; not only had she just found one of her friends dead on the floor, she had also inherited a traumatized and broken city, reeling from tragedy. Many people would have panicked in this situation, but Feinstein displayed the will and determination that came to characterize her rise to one of the most important and powerful
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
California politicians of the last 50 years. If there were a Mount Rushmore of important California leaders – perhaps overlooking some beautiful vista in the Sierra Nevada – it would include founders like John C. Fremont and influential governors such as Hiram Johnson, Earl Warren and Jerry Brown. While there are many others who may deserve the woman stands out: Dianne Feinstein. In 2018, Senator Feinstein
is up for re-election. Although she is a beloved figure in California, she will be 85 years old, meaning she will be 91 at the end of her next term. Senator Feinstein is already the oldest member of the United States Senate, so it seems increasingly likely that we are witnessing the final two years of Senator Feinstein’s historic career. Feinstein was born in 1933 in San Francisco to Jewish parents. She quickly climbed the political ladder in San Francisco, becoming a supervisor in 1969. However, from there, her political career hit a glass ceiling as she failed in mayoral runs in 1971 and 1975. These setbacks would lead most politicians to give up on their careers in politics. But Dianne Feinstein showed grit and determination and she stayed on as a supervisor after her defeats. Her perseverance paid off, because in 1978 she became the first female president of the board of supervisors. Everything changed for her and the city of San Francisco on that fateful Monday in late November 1978. That evening, after the news broke, she gave a press conference in which she displayed poise and determination that gave strength to a shattered city. San Francisco had been through a horrible month. Only nine days before, on Nov. 18, San Francisco’s Congressman Leo Ryan was shot in Guyana by members of the People's Temple cult – a radical group led by the enigmatic leader Jim Jones. Later, Jones led over 900 cult members – many of whom were from San
Francisco – to commit suicide. The grief and death from these two events had the city teetering on the edge of despair. To combat these crises, Feinstein summoned her patented determination. With calmness and strength, she reassured the city. After surviving these crises, she helped usher San Francisco into a new era of growth and prosperity. She won election as mayor in her own right in 1979 and was re-elected in 1983. As mayor, she made crime one of her first priorities. She strengthened the police force and combated gun violence. These reforms led to a 27 percent reduction in the crime rate in San Francisco during her tenure. Mayor Feinstein also declared the first AIDS awareness week in 1984, which helped create greater awareness of the deadly disease that was devastating San Francisco’s gay population in the 1980s and had been ignored by the Reagan administration. Her success and popularity led her to run for governor in 1990 against Republican Senator Pete Wilson. However, she ran into yet another glass ceiling as she failed in her bid to become the first female governor of California. But when one glass ceiling stopped her, Feinstein broke another. Feinstein yet again dug deep and showed her perseverance and determination. In 1992, she won the special election to fill Pete Wilson’s vacated Senate seat. In doing so, she became the first female senator of California. As a senator, Feinstein rose to the top echelon of the
Democratic national leadership. Most second-year senators are expected to sit quietly in the back of the chamber. However, Senator Feinstein bucked that trend and introduced major gun safety legislation. As mayor, Feinstein had attempted to ban handguns in San Francisco. In mid-1994, she authored the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which limited the assault weapons allowed in the United States. With this act, she brought her passion on this issue to the national level. She was inspired to introduce the ban because of a recent mass shooting at 101 California Street in San Francisco that had stunned the nation and Senator Feinstein. The act narrowly passed the Senate 52 to 48 in 1994, and she was credited for her leadership and legislative skills in guiding it through the upper chamber. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a major step forward in the prevention of gun deaths in the 1990s. However, the bill expired in 2004 and the senate has not renewed it since. Feinstein continued to work on gun safety legislation when she introduced the GunFree School Act of 1994. The bill used federal funds to force states to pass laws that toughened existing gun-free school laws. Its passage has helped reduce gun crimes in schools. However, both of her gun-safety bills were denounced by the NRA, who argued that the federal government was infringing on individuals’ Second Amendment rights and that using Federal funds to force states to pass laws infringes on
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
17
states’ rights. After the Sandy Hook Massacre of 2012, Senator Feinstein introduced new gun safety legislation that proposed banning certain assault weapons. However, the NRA and other Second Amendment lobbyists managed to defeat the bill. Feinstein was named chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2009. She used her power as the head of the committee to influence policy regarding the National Security Agency and the abolishment of government-approved torture 18
during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, during which the Bush administration authorized torture techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation to force terror suspects to reveal information. The details of the controversial program had not been fully aired to the public until, in late 2014, Senator Feinstein released a 600-page torture report which condemned the CIA’s use of torture. Many in the intelligence community and the White House did not want Senator Feinstein to release the report,
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
but she went against their wishes and released it while condemning the era of torture as a “stain on our values and our history.” Senator Feinstein showed that she would not let politics get in the way of doing what she believed was right. By releasing the report, she allowed the public to see what had occurred during the War on Terror. Senator Feinstein said her goal was, “to ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted.” Throughout her career, Dianne Feinstein broke glass ceiling after glass ceiling. Whenever she failed or lost, she did not give up. Rather, she doubled down and persevered, eventually moving on to her next achievement. Feinstein is a model and inspiration for generations of young women who can look to her as someone who never gave up in the face of defeat. Feinstein’s leadership as mayor helped usher San Francisco through its darkest times. Her trailblazing career in the Senate saw her rise to one of the most powerful and influential Democrats in the country. As Feinstein nears the end what will likely be her last term, she leaves behind an unmatched legacy of breaking gender barriers and profound leadership. When she retires, there will surely be a spot waiting for her on the hallowed grounds of history with the other great Californian politicians. ■
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
THE RISE OF THE FAR-RIGHT BY SIERRA LEWANDOWSKI
O
n March 15, the Netherlands held an election to determine the next 150seat government for its lower chamber of parliament. The current government, led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, is the first to govern for the full five-year term since May 2002. The Netherlands government, comprised of coalitions formed by small parties joining together, can dissolve and force an early election if policy comes to a stalemate. Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician
known for his platinum blonde hair and the leader of the Party for Freedom, broke away from the coalition-led government in 2010, causing a “snap election” in the fall of 2012. Wilders has since become a political icon – spurring national and international media attention for his inflammatory speech – and has even been referred to as the “Dutch Trump” because he employs many of the same rhetorical tactics, while maintaining national support.
In the election of 2012, Wilder’s party lost nine seats in parliament. His decision to leave the government reflected his hard stance on European Union policy, and has since campaigned for the Netherlands to leave the European Union. Wilders is also dedicated to the de-Islamization of the Netherlands and Europe. He is known for his vicious language towards the Netherlands’ Moroccan “scum” and his intention to “make the Netherlands ours again.” Wilders’ policy on
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
19
immigration would close the Netherlands’ borders to nonWestern European countries. Despite this nativist, xenophobic and racist verbiage, Wilders is gaining popularity and will compete with incumbent Rutte for prime minister in the March election. Dutch political parties need 76 seats to form a majority coalition, which is unlikely for Wilders’ extremist party. However, the popularity of his campaign nation-wide is somewhat startling. The Netherlands is known as a cultural and political hub of liberalism and became the first country to legalize same sexmarriage in 2008. The Netherlands also maintains an international reputation of progressivism for legalizing prostitution, euthanasia, and lenient policies on marijuana and soft drugs. The large support of Wilders poses an interesting dynamic within the Netherlands – a sort of “silent majority” invigorated by his nativist speech.
20
However, Wilders serves as just one example of a larger populist trend in Europe. Candidates and parties classified as being on the “far-right” of the political spectrum are gaining momentum in many Western countries. This trend runs parallel with the growing fragmentation of the electorate in Europe, as voters veer away from traditional bloc parties toward non-established parties. Marine Le Pen, a nationalist “far-right” leader of the National Front Party in France, will most likely make it to the secondround vote for the French presidential election. The rise in popularity of nationalist parties such as the Freedom Party in Austria, the People’s Party in Switzerland, the Swedish Democrats, the Danish People’s Party, the Lega Nord “Northern League” Party in Italy, the True Finn Party, the Jobbik Party in Hungary, the Golden Dawn Party in Greece, and the Alternative for Germany represent a surge for politicians and parties on the “far-right.”
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
The far-right focuses on social traditionalism, free markets, and, in the European context, anti-immigration and antiEuropean Union. Wilders’ promises to hold a referendum to decide whether the Netherlands should stay in the European Union. Often seen as a “trendsetter” for European politics, the Netherlands will serve as a key player in the future of the European Union. The surprise Brexit vote in June 2016 evinces a European trend moving toward isolationism and Euroscepticism. This rise in nationalism seems to be a reaction to the political and social climate in Europe. Voters are responding to the recovering European economy, the growing migration crisis, acts of terror, and shifts in the world-order caused by globalization. Xenophobia, the fear of people from other countries, dominates much of the rhetoric employed by these right-wing party leaders, feeding off the fears and insecurities of citizens who want explanations and solutions for European instability. The populist rise in Europe can be explained by first looking at the economy. In 2008, the world faced the greatest global recession since the Great Depression. After the initial crash in the United States, the crisis spread to Europe, affecting industry and production, eventually resulting in the European debt crisis. Some European Union member-countries were not able to rise out of debt, putting strain onto the European Union to support them. Most notably, the
European Union bailed out countries such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal. More generally, the European economy has been growing sluggishly and the region still suffers from intensifying unemployment. The focus on nationalism calls for a return of production and jobs to the country, and represents a push for a more closed economy. Populism offers a solution to unemployment and job displacement, to help move the country out of economic hardship. Constituents, in times of economic crisis, want to feel like they are electing people that will stimulate the economy and bring employment back to hardworking people. That answer, presented by these nationalist leaders, comes in the form of scapegoating. The suggestion that job loss is the result of increased immigration, where those coming into the country are stealing the employment opportunities, is particularly persuasive and often tactfully used by these “far-right” candidates. In Europe especially, people are susceptible to stricter borders as a response to acts of terror and violence seen in France, Germany and Belgium in 2015 and 2016. Right-wing candidates tap into the fear that violence, perpetuated by the “cultural other,” will only continue because of lenient borders and liberal immigration policies. The rising numbers of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia further cause contention for voters who fear their national identity is at risk. Politicians blaming “Mexican rapists” or “Moroccan
scum” for stealing jobs leaves white, middle-upper class citizens to unite behind a movement that promises to “Make [insert country here] Great Again!” Globalization has also come to define the political, social and cultural shifts occurring in Europe and around the world. Globalization comprises not just the movement of peoples, but also is seen in the form of technology and the interconnectedness that defines the new world-order. Spurred, in part, by the growing intermixing of societies, where whiteness no longer defines European cities, national identity can be seen as “threatened” by heterogeneity. In response to this, nationalism serves as a solution to this threat, as these leaders advocate a renewed focus on the local economy and nationstate. In many ways, these sentiments are in parallel with the American appeal of Donald Trump. White voters had become disillusioned by the mixing of their societies, and a feeling that their historic dominance in the political landscape was slipping away. This can be seen in the white backlash against the Barack Obama’s presidency. In Europe, the colonialist mindset strives to revert to traditionalism, and a desire for white dominance and power. The rhetoric of degradation, oppression and racism spewed by these politicians towards non-white cultures has become normalized, without effects to their polling statistics. The reality, however, is that Europe no longer dominates the global
economy, the manufacturing sector or the political sphere, which has prompted a sense of white inferiority, increasing the popularity of politicians who promise that uniting against a common enemy will bring renewed national prosperity. The rise of the right is occurring throughout the Western world. Pleas for a shift to a more isolationist, nation-first policy and a return to traditionalism has fueled the campaigns of candidates and parties. The shift away from the European Union towards tighter European borders and economic isolationism will seriously alter the economic order. Though these “far-right” candidates are tapping into a constituency that feels left out by globalization, the tactics and speech employed by these leaders is caustic to our societies. We must remember what this divisive rhetoric does. Regardless of political preference, the normalization of these racist and hateful sentiments spewed by these candidates is toxic to global peace and tolerance. In the decade following the Great Depression, the seeds of racism were planted that eventually grew into the annihilation of 11 million citizens, by virtue of race and religion, and the subsequent War to End All Wars. Geert Wilders serves as one example of a growing movement throughout Europe. The Netherlands’ 2017 election could set a powerful precedent for future policies regarding European countries, the West and the World. ■
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
21
UP IN SMOKE The future of legal marijuana.
BY MILO KAHNEY
2
016 was a big year for the movement to legalize marijuana. California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska as states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use, while citizens of the state of Arizona narrowly rejected their state’s measure to legalize, with 52 percent voting no. Florida, North Dakota and Arkansas, states that all voted for Trump, also legalized medical marijuana. 22
Currently, one out of every five Americans can now consume marijuana without consulting a doctor. Additionally, medical marijuana is legal in 21 other states. According to a Quinnipiac University poll, 59 percent of Americans support legalization on both sides of the political spectrum. After 40 years of what many consider to be the failed “war on drugs,” it seems many people are changing their minds about marijuana.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
It is easy to see why marijuana is gaining traction. Recent developments in the medical marijuana industry have led to more effective ways to treat medical conditions such as chronic pain. It is also a money-maker: the state of Colorado made over $200 million in tax revenue last year, much of it allocated to fund public schools. Also, people in states where marijuana is legal no longer go to jail for possession, saving states millions in prison
costs. Legalization also sets up regulations for the drug, promoting consumer’s rights. Weed is reinvigorating economies across the nation. In 2015, the industry generated $2.4 billion in revenue and has created an astounding 18,000 new jobs. Money generated from marijuana sales spills over into other industries as well. To grow marijuana, farmers need high-tech lighting and state-of-the-art ventilation systems, increasing demand for specialized products. Farmers also need warehouse space to store the product, and professionals, such as lawyers and accountants, to handle the business. The money coming from marijuana is mostly being siphoned away from black market vendors. MPG experts think that by the year 2020, 90 percent of weed bought will come from dispensaries instead of the cartel. Marijuana is also heavily taxed, with a roughly 30 percent effective tax rate. In Colorado, the wholesale tax on weed has led to $40 million in revenue going to school upgrades, the majority of which are in rural districts. Legalization has not been entirely smooth, however. In the early days of legalization in Colorado, teenagers died after consuming edibles, causing the state to impose clearer labels on products. Another problem is the proliferation of ads for dispensaries. Although there are restrictions, advertisement is key to expanding business. There are billboards for edibles, posters for dispensaries, and even The California Aggie has an ad for a marijuana de-
livery service. Advertisements are dangerous because, instead of just replacing cartels with dispensaries, they can lead to an increase in usage. It also eliminates the stigma that weed is harmful. Some communities have begun to ban advertisements. For example, the city of Denver has banned all outdoor advertisements for dispensaries. There are also measures to ban ads within 1,000 feet of schools in Denver. Although these bans are good starts, more must be done. Another problem is people driving while high. There is no reliable way to test whether people are driving while stoned. Law enforcement nationwide test whether drivers are high by checking their THC content. This is troubling because, unlike alcohol, which leaves your system fairly quickly, THC gets stored in fat cells, which means that people who are regular users, even if they were not high while driving, can still test positive for THC. Law enforcement around the country is trying to develop ways to measure whether a driver is high, but lacking a reliable test is dangerous because people will continue to drive high. The industry hopes that these problems will be solved before weed is legal everywhere. Marijuana is harmful for the teenage brain and has lasting effects. Adults who smoked heavily as teenagers have lost on average eight IQ points. Smoking marijuana in teenage years is also linked to long-term memory loss. Many pundits argue that legalizing weed will increase teenage
use. However, a 2015 report showed that since legalizing weed in 2014, Colorado teens are not more likely to smoke marijuana than before it was legal. Colorado teens actually use marijuana less than the national average, in large part because weed has always been easy to obtain. Eighty percent of high school seniors say that they can easily get their hands on marijuana. Some states have taken extra measures to stop teenagers from getting high; for example, in California consumers must be at least 21 to buy weed. While there is backlash towards legalizing weed for recreational use, there is widespread support for medical use. According to another Quinnipiac University poll, 93 percent of voters support legalizing weed for medical use. Marijuana has many medical uses and many people do not use it to get high, but rely on it to manage chronic pain, etc. It could also help curb the worst drug epidemic in U.S. history: heroin. Opioids, which are chemically identical to heroin, are prescribed by doctors to help people with pain. They are highly addictive and have many side effects. For many people, heroin is cheaper than opioids and has a bigger high, making it a dangerously easy transition. In 2015, more than 33,000 people died of heroin overdoses, more than gun homicides and about the same as deaths from car accidents. People have been begging to treat their pain with cannabis-based medications instead of opioids because it is safer and less addictive.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
23
Pharmaceutical companies are lobbying to oppose the movement because marijuana would compromise their sales. Doctors in states that allow medical marijuana sales prescribe on average 1,826 fewer doses of pain prescription. Despite the benefits and increased public support, President Donald Trump places the future of legalization in doubt. Marijuana is a tricky issue because, although states have legalized it, the Drug Enforcement Administration classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug and it is therefore illegal per the federal government. This brings in the issue of federalism: Do state cannabis laws take precedent over federal laws? Trump could bring the movement to its knees. Recently approved Attorney General Jeff Sessions is staunchly opposed to legalization. He infamously said he thought that the KKK “were OK until I found out they smoked weed”. Sean Spicer also hinted that the federal government could also step up its en-
24
forcement against recreational use. Indeed, the federal government has a history of raiding and closing dispensaries. Obama in 2008 promised to stop using government resources to close dispensaries, but by 2013 he had spent $300 million to close down dispensaries, $100 million more than President George W. Bush. However, in 2014 the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment was added to a budget bill, which prohibits the Department of Justice from interfering with state marijuana laws. The amendment is the only safeguard preventing the Trump administration from halting legalization. However, it must be renewed every year and only applies to medical use. If it fails to renew one year, then the movement may be doomed. If Trump and Sessions choose to wage a war on marijuana with a GOP majority in both houses, they could end the movement entirely. However, because legalization drains the cartels’ influence, it would be foolish to spend the federal money and resources on curbing retail sales. Legalizing
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
weed, although not without problems, is a much more logical approach to ensuring public safety than letting people rely on the black market for marijuana products. ■
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
25
badly?”
THE INESCAPABLE IDEOLOGICAL LENS BY ERIC QUINTANAR
M
ost everyone has experienced the misfortune of having to interact with an unfriendly acquaintance or coworker. It is not always immediately obvious a particularly coworker is being purposefully unfriendly; it usually starts by assuming you have incorrectly perceived ill intent on their part. But as you interact with them more, it may become apparent that, for whatever reason, they don’t like you. Given this discovery, it becomes easier to recognize when they give you a hostile glare, or when they seemingly go out of their own way to inconvenience you. Every interaction you have with them henceforth becomes an irrational exercise in mental gymnastics, in which you seek to 26
discover all the ways they may have just wronged you. To some, this scenario is significant only in that it speaks to the pettiness of people. But of great importance is the realization that your interactions with that person will now be different than your interactions with other people, as will the questions you ask yourself as a result of these interactions. If your unfriendly coworker goes on an office coffee run but comes back with the wrong drink for you, you may ask yourself, “Did my coworker do this on purpose?” Conversely, if a different coworker goes on an office coffee run but comes back with the wrong drink for you, you may ask yourself, “How did the barista mess up my order so
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
This tendency to respond with different questions depending on our understanding of the other individual is not unique to personal interactions. In politics, the questions people ask about situations change depending on the way they perceive the world; this perception is the ideological lense. Some people’s lenses focus on people with power, and how – through existing institutions – the powerful wield their power against the powerless. Thus, when a man is shot dead by a police officer, the first questions that those with these lenses ask are “What was the race of the individuals involved?” and “Was the man unarmed?” This is because, to those wearing these lenses, the victim’s and officer’s race can indicate whether racial oppression was a contributing factor to the shooting. If the victim was unarmed, it may demonstrate that police escalate violence. This is the lens with which many Americans view the world. A different set of ideological lenses focuses on values. A person with these lenses may say that it is foolish to ask if the man was unarmed, as being armed isn’t a prerequisite for being dangerous. Instead, they ask such questions as “Did the individual escalate the confrontation?” and “Did the officer reasonable assume bad intentions on the part of the individual?” In the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., the media ignored the possibility of escalation on Michael Brown’s behalf, and
instead opted to trust eyewitnesses that claimed Brown was wrongfully executed at close range. Court documents and a DOJ investigation later concluded that Michael Brown was shot only after an altercation in which Brown reached for the officer’s gun. Ideology provides the rhetorical questions we need to ask ourselves to make sense of the information we find in the world. It provides coherence to a world that is otherwise full of unintelligible data. He who asks a question is ideological. This is why it is important for us to be
honest about and embrace our ideologies, while still maintaining that they can be challenged. At his final speech to the United Nations, President Barack Obama declared himself free from “theories” or “ideology,” opting to instead portray himself as a practical guy who makes decisions based strictly on facts. By doing so, he dismissed the idea that there are different ways to interpret facts, effectively dismissing anyone who could possibly disagree with him. If reason is to triumph, we must learn to be skeptical of those that provide conclusive
narratives. We must learn to view issues from different angles, to see if the view we resonate with holds up to scrutiny, or to discover a different angle that perhaps will resonate with us more deeply. Ideas control everything; if you aren’t careful with which ones you let in, it may make too much sense, even if, in reality, it makes very little sense at all. Let us make progress by understanding other points of view, not simply listening and responding. A discussion of ideologies will be far more useful than any discussions on policy. ■
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
27
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: •
28
Quarter-page: $45
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
We
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
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
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
30
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
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 2017 Vox Populi Vox Dei DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017
31
32
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Winter 2017