Fall 2017 Issue 2 by Brown Political Review

Fall 2017. Issue 2.

Brown Political Review Sponsored by the Political Theory Project

Masthead

Brown Political Review

Editors-in-Chief Aidan Calvelli & Noah Cowan Chiefs of Staff Michael Bass & Bami Oke Creative Director Klara Auerbach Cover art by Sam Berenfield

Editorial Board

Senior Managing Editor Jack Glaser Managing Editors Pieter Brower & Angie Kim Associate Editors Taylor Auten Victor Brechenmacher Mary Dong Michael Gold Christian Hanway Jordan Kranzler Max Low Olivia Nash Jared Samilow Lucy Walke Emily Yamron Gabe Zimmerman

Data Board

Data Director Matthew Dudak Associate Data Director Aansh Shah Data Associates Julia Gilman Zachary Horvitz Amy Huang Alex Jang Malavika Krishnan Louise Tisch

Copy Editorial Board Chief Copy Editor Liza Ruzicka Associate CEC Daniel Duarte Perdomo Associate Copy Editors Miles Campbell Halle Fowler Erin Gallagher Gabriela Gil Will Gomberg Joseph Hinton Samuel Parmer Brendan Sweeney Dorothy Windham

Media Board

Media Director Isabela Karibjanian Media Associates Zack Goldstein Jenna Israel Max Naftol Tim Peltier Eileen Phou Katie Scheibal Joelle Sherman

Jen Shook Yashi Wang

Content Board

Content Directors Jordan Campbell & Matthew Meyer US Section Managers Taylor Auten Brendan Pierce Rachel Risoleo US Writers Streator Bates A.J. Braverman Justin Breuch Ashley Chen Dane Cooper Sophie Culpepper Brionne Frazier Michael Froid Annie Gersh Cayla Kaplan John Metz Michael Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Neill Sophia Petros Sean Sullivan Carter Woodruff World Section Managers Alessandro Borghese Allison Meakem Jeremy Rhee World Writers Vafa Behnam Alex Burdo Connor Cardoso Alexa Clark Mike Danello Mara Dolan Dhruv Gaur Julian Jacobs Sean Joyce Anna Kramer Annie Lehman-Ludwig Zoe Mermelstein Orwa Mohammad Thomas Murphy Simran Nayak Nathaniel Pettit Culture Section Managers Alan Garcia-Ramos Madeleine Thompson Kion You Culture Writers Maria Camila Arbalaez Noah Choi Anna Corradi James Flynn

Matthew Ishimaru Joel Kesselbrenner Hans Lei Olivia Rosenbloom Benjamin Shumate Emily Skahill Erika Undeland

Interviews Board

Interviews Director Katrina Northrop Interviews Associates Maria Camila Arbelaez Zahra Asghar Maya Gonzales Fitzpatrick Jack Makari Sea-Jay Van der Ploeg Alexis Viera Joshua Waldman Catherine Walker-Jacks Jordan Waller

Marketing Board

Marketing Director Anna Marx Social Media Director Kevin Garcia Marketing Associates Nelson Chou Allie Dolido Bridget Duru Maria Hornbacher Stephanie Kendler Karolyn Lee Will Pate Ellie Seid Calista Shang Lauren Shin

Business Board

Business Director Alan Swierczynski Assistant Business Director Graham Gonzales Business Associates Oona Cahill Owen Colby Erin Gallagher Austin Reynolds Sidi Wen

Creative Board

Creative Director Klara Auerbach Associate Creative Director Anna Ryu

Brown Political Review

Contents

fall 2017

CONTENTS US 6 Piloting Politics

Emily Yamron Boeing’s quest to steer the Iran Deal to a soft landing

Judgment Day Nicholas Lindseth

XXX-Ed Joseph Hinton

Shopping Outside the Box Aidan Calvelli

The future of mandatory arbitration Pornography’s place in sex education

2 Masthead 3 Contents 4 Magazine in Numbers 5 Letter from the Editors

Walmart’s departure as a good deal for rural America

Special Feature: Technology 18 Code Red Ashley Chen Liability and the case for regulating code

Data Feature 26 Rebooting Regulation

Julia Gilman The unorthodox views of tech entrepreneurs

Technology’s Blind Spot Mary Dong Affordable eye care and the proliferation of tech

DNA Discrimination Olivia Nash Fixing the fears of genetic testing

Seeds of the Silicon Savannah Michael Bass

Supporting homegrown talent in Africa’s tech industry

World 29 Devolution Dilemma Victor Brechenmacher

How the Franco-era state of autonomies jeopardizes Spain’s unity

Connection Not Found Angie Kim When governments pull the plug on the internet

Linguistic Life Support Pieter Brower

An Enemy of my Enemy A.J. Braverman

What goverments should do about dying languages The blooming relationship between Israel and the Kurds

Interviews 42

Sabrina Siddiqui

Siegfried Hecker

Sarahjane Blum

Faiz Shakir

David Corn

Ben Domenech 3

Magazine in Numbers

400,000 to 1

170

Ratio of people to certified optometrists in sub-Saharan Africa

Number of startups launched by iHub, Kenyaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest innovation lab

200 millennia Time in years that Americans spent watching pornography on Pornhub in 2016

Proportion of Israeli-consumed oil that comes from the Iraqi Kurdistan region

$20 billion

154

Value of Boeingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contracts with Iranian airlines 4 4

75 percent

Number of Walmart locations that closed in 2016

Letter from the Editors

Letter from the Editors The human drive to innovate is the root of civilization. From the plow to the iPhone, human ingenuity has pulled us from hunter-gatherers into the digital era. As time plods on, the rate at which these technologies emerge is higher than ever. The special feature of this issue is devoted to technology because its ability to effect change has never been greater. It’s crucial for everyone to consider how governments responses to technology will shape the world’s future. Though technology has been a part of life since the dawn of humankind, recent innovations have revolutionized human existence. Ranging frrom vaccinations and fertilizers to circuits and satellites, new advances have saved millions of lives and created millions of livelihoods. The vast reach of the internet has connected populations across the globe and opened forums of discussion that have toppled dictators. Advances in data collection and analysis have allowed governments to understand their electorates in new ways and craft policies that tackle problems previously thought to be unsolvable. But technology is a double-edged sword. Modern military technologies threaten to obliterate cities and nations, and changes in automation and shipping have left millions unemployed and millions more in sweatshops. Worse, the gains of technology have been poorly distributed worldwide. Developed countries have reaped most of the benefits of technology’s rapid rise, while those benefits have not spread nearly as widely to developing countries. This has exacerbated global inequality and left many powerless amidst the changing world order. Technology, when made accessible, can be an equalizing factor. Spreading the benefits of technology to places currently left behind is a fundamental challenge for its advancement. In our feature, we explore the myriad ways in which technology and politics intersect. Mary Dong demonstrates how technologies often taken for granted in the developed world must be better distributed abroad. Michael Bass lays out why encouraging homegrown innovation may be better for Kenya than importing western models of technological development. Olivia Nash urges the US Congress to encourage medical advances by eliminating barriers to genetic testing. Finally, Ashley Chen gives a convincing argument for holding companies, not consumers, liable for their shoddy code. Although the science and thought that produces new technology is often attributed only to the geniuses that lead their fields, governments play an outsized role in making sure the benefits of innovation are fairly distributed. Rural electrification, the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th century according to the National Academy of Engineers, was only made possible by the New Deal-era Rural Electrification Act. Developments like these define a nation and its people. As governments face a new era of technological questions, from funding the sciences to regulating driverless cars, those that balance courage and care will be the ones that propel our civilization into the future.

– Aidan & Noah, Editors-in-Chief

5 5

PILOTING POLITICS Boeing’s quest to steer the Iran deal to a soft landing

In the present-day United States, no landmark political decision is insulated from commercial interests. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran deal, reflects not only the cautious diplomacy between the United States and one of its foremost international rivals, but also the powerful influence of corporate lobbyists in pushing the deal forward or holding it back. Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace company, spent millions on lobbying and was instrumental in getting the US government to sign the agreement. As a result, the company itself was able to sign $20 billion in contracts with Iranian airlines. However, with President Trump’s decision in early October not to recertify the Iran deal, Congress could choose to reimpose sanctions.

Doing so would cost Boeing its multibillion dollar deals, a critical setback to one of the largest manufacturers in the country. Reestablishing sanctions would also deal a blow to politicians who benefit from or are influenced by Boeing’s lobbying and campaign financing activities. But there are also political implications of taking Boeing’s side: By choosing not to reimpose sanctions, Republicans in Congress who have built their careers on being tough on Iran now risk losing that reputation. Hence, Trump’s refusal to certify the deal has created a political conundrum for much of his party, opening a critical vulnerability that his opponents can leverage heading into the 2018 elections. Boeing’s interest in Iranian carriers must be contextualized by its business

troubles in the last decade and a half. Though Boeing has been a successful Air Force contractor, the company became the subject of intense scrutiny after news broke that it colluded with the Air Force to discourage competition and criticism in the early 2000s. Since then, Boeing has lost considerable market share to Airbus, its European competitor, especially in marketing its superjumbo jets. The company suffered another hit in early 2016 when the Securities and Exchange Commission opened an investigation into its accounting of Dreamliner and 747 sales. In the face of these obstacles, Iran’s long-isolated airlines offer a tantalizing chunk of market share. Accordingly, Boeing spent millions of dollars stateside in an extensive campaign to persuade diplomats to sign off on the Iran deal. These efforts paid off: In December 2016, the company inked a $16.6 billion deal with Iran Air and a $3 billion deal with domestic Iranian carrier Aseman. Though Airbus also signed a deal with Iran Air, the transaction was a big victory for Boeing and was followed by a substantial rise in the company’s stock price. However, with American participation in the JCPOA in jeopardy, Boeing could stand to lose billions. Reimposing sanctions would strike out any possibility of Boeing continuing with its deals in Iran. If the JCPOA were to fall through, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which handles Boeing’s license to sell aircraft to Iran, could revoke the license and prohibit Boeing from going forward with the deal. On the other hand, Airbus, despite sourcing many of its parts from the United States, can better shield itself from this problem by leveraging the precedent of past European business plans in Iran, expanding its grasp over the market. This poses a substantial problem for the company: While Boeing’s 2018 inventory is oversold, it has only signed contracts for 90 percent of its 2019 fleet, and profits could plummet if it can’t find a way to contract its leftover planes. On a larger scale, the company has stated that the deal supports nearly 100,000 jobs domestically among its employees and subcontractors, all of which

could be eliminated by a cancellation of the deal. Companies such as General Electric, which supply the planes’ engines, and Securaplane, which produces batteries, could also see their profits take a hit. With $94 billion in annual revenue and 150,000 employees, Boeing is the largest aerospace and defense company in the US, the best performing stock on the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and a donor of upwards of $2 million each congressional election cycle—in other words, not a corporation that any politician wants to antagonize. The potential collapse of the Boeing deals will have startling economic consequences. But perhaps more concerning to Congress is the possible political fallout from balancing the contradiction between bolstering American manufacturing jobs and maintaining a hostile stance toward Iran—both of which have been critical aspects of the Republican platform in recent years. In 2016, the GOP promoted policies that encouraged American manufacturing as part of their “Restoring the American Dream” plan while also issuing damning criticism of Iran and even threatening to torpedo the deal for its perceived leniency. From Senator Marco Rubio to Donald Trump, many Republicans have advocated for strengthening domestic manufacturing on the one hand, while advocating for a “tough stance on Iran” on the other. Ironically, these two seemingly unrelated pieces of the Republican platform have come into conflict, creating a blatant vulnerability. This Achilles’ heel in the Republican platform could have gone unnoticed if President Trump had simply neglected his campaign promises. Instead, Trump chose not to recertify the JCPOA through the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA). Congress now has three options: re-impose sanctions, amend the INARA and renegotiate the terms of the JCPOA, or do nothing and wait 120 more days until Trump once again has to choose whether to certify Iranian compliance. While restoring sanctions would have obvious consequences for Boeing

and American manufacturing more broadly, the decision would also require lobbying power equal to or greater than that of Boeing. Additionally, those voting to reimpose sanctions could find themselves stiffed by Boeing in the upcoming midterms; the company’s political action committee gives out roughly $2 million to members of Congress, split equally between Democrats and Republicans, during each election cycle. However, the company might consider withholding funds for those who can’t find reason in their conscience, or in their campaign’s coffers, to vote in Boeing’s interest. Meanwhile, fear that amending INARA could cause the Iranians to walk away from the JCPOA makes that route equally undesirable. Perhaps the more policysmart but politically dangerous move would be to do nothing, leaving Trump to choose to recertify the deal in a few months’ time. There is a broad international consensus that the deal has effectively prevented

a nuclear Iran, a sentiment that is also held by many in the US government. Though it did not halt Iranian support of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah or oppressive governments such as the Assad regime in Syria, most in the international community acknowledge its strength in achieving what it set out to do. An American decision to attempt to renegotiate the deal or reimpose sanctions could easily prompt an Iranian departure from the negotiating table, jeopardizing the stable if fragile policy that is vital to global security. Choosing not to amend the INARA or reimpose sanctions is good policy. It rejects an aggressive provocation and shows American support for international cooperation. However, it would also mean that Republicans who campaigned on neutralizing Iran may be lampooned for reversing on a critical campaign promise either by the media or by a president who has shown little hesitation toward openly criticizing members of his own party.

Congressional Republicans have boxed themselves in by trying to fulfill promises from both their campaigns and President Trump’s. No matter how they vote, Republicans up for reelection provide easy talking points for their opponents and risk losing the support of Boeing. Middle Eastern policy has always been a dangerous chess game, but members of Congress who have been vocal about both manufacturing and foreign policy find themselves more than ever in a political zugzwang, where the best move would be to not make a decision at all. Yet Trump’s refusal to recertify the Iran deal has left Republicans with nothing to do but vote and hope that they don’t find themselves in checkmate come midterms.

Emily Yamron ‘20 is a Public Health concentrator and an Associate Editor at BPR. Illustrations by Jackson Joyce

Brown Political Review

Judgment day

he Equifax hack shocked Americans in both its scope and preventability. The Social Security numbers of over 143 million citizens were exposed, despite the fact that a patch for the exploited vulnerability was available for months prior to the breach. As customers attempted to secure their exposed information using Equifax’s reparation offer of one free year of credit monitoring, they came up against a roadblock in their pursuit of accountability. Using the oneyear service required consumers to sign a mandatory arbitration clause. This meant that any disputes raised against the company would have to be resolved outside the court system through individual arbitration. Unfortunately, arbitrators often have incentives to side with corporations, and payouts for individuals often pale in comparison to the filing fee. Massive public outcry forced Equifax to clarify that this clause applied only to claims arising from the one year of monitoring, as opposed to the breach. However, continued public pressure pushed the company to waive it entirely. All this commotion shined a light on an issue little-known to the public, but one continually rehashed among lawmakers and regulators. A 2015 survey conducted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) revealed that 75 percent of Americans did not know whether they had signed an arbitration clause with a financial company, despite the ubiquity of such clauses within the industry. Most recently, the CFPB issued a regulation in July banning arbitration clauses that restrict a consumer’s right to pursue class-action lawsuits. In late October, however, the Senate repealed the rule, meaning that broad legislative action is needed, albeit unlikely. The arguments in favor of mandatory arbitration clauses are narrow and cater to business interests at the expense of consumers and employees. From the perspective of business owners, arbitration clauses allow cases to be settled

The future of mandatory arbitration

cheaply, privately, and expediently. Most importantly, arbitration clauses often prohibit class-action suits, meaning that businesses are insulated from large damages and consumers are disincentivized from even pursuing their claims in the first place. Many argue that such clauses help protect small business from frivolous lawsuits, which significantly burden economic growth, and ensure that cases avoid juries, which tend to side against the corporation even without adequate evidence of wrongdoing. The drawbacks of such a system directly target consumers and employees. In the case of last year’s Wells Fargo scandal, which revealed that the bank encouraged, and sometimes coerced, employees to open millions of additional accounts for preexisting customers without consumer authorization, consumers had raised claims against such practices in arbitration venues. Yet the private nature of these proceedings and the inability of customers to form a class-action suit kept this behavior out of the public eye and prevented a suit from taking place earlier. In the case of Fox News, the inclusion of an arbitration clause in Gretchen Carlson’s employment contract meant that her sexual harassment suit against Roger Ailes would be kept behind closed doors and the details of the network’s work environment had to be hidden from the public. As a result of such clauses, large firms insulate themselves from any real accountability and incentives to change malicious behavior. Bad practices are simply not exposed. Further compounding the problem, arbitrators have been found to have a significant pro-business bias. According to the advocacy group Public Citizen, a four-year survey of California arbitration claims involving banks and credit card companies revealed that arbitrators ruled in favor of consumers only 6 percent of the time. Arbitrators have a financial incentive to side with businesses, because they can become repeat customers. At every step of the way, mandatory arbitra-

At every step of the way, mandatory arbitration clauses systematically favor businesses in ways that disproportionately harm consumers and employees.

Brown Political Review

tion clauses systematically favor businesses in ways that disproportionately harm consumers and employees. Prior to 1925—and even continuing into the mid-century—arbitration clauses were met with hostility in the court system, making their rise all the more confusing. But in 1925, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) laid the groundwork for mandatory arbitration as we see it today. Though not intended to open the floodgates of mandatory arbitration, the bill has since been interpreted by the Supreme Court as creating “a national policy favoring arbitration” that governs both federal and state courts, setting a very arbitration-friendly modern precedent. Challenges to this standard have been placed before the Supreme Court in recent years, most notably with the 2013 case of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion regarding arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. According to the California state law in question, any arbitration clause that included a class action waiver was unenforceable since it protected one of the parties from recourse taken against them for their wrongful behavior. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that “individualized proceedings are an inherent and necessary element of arbitration that do not permit blanket rules banning class action waivers.” In effect, this ruling rejected any state law that would attempt to preempt and avoid the mandates of the FAA. At the state level, there have been moderately successful attempts to decrease the power of mandatory arbitration clauses. In New Jersey, the state’s Superior Court in the cases of Dispenziere v. Kushner Companies and Atalese v. United States Legal Services Corp held that the arbitration clauses in question were unenforceable as they lacked “clear and unambiguous language” and that the “plaintiff is waiving her right to seek relief in court for a breach of her statutory rights.” By relying on the principle of mutual consent—the requirement that parties agree on the basic facts of a contract when agreeing to one—the New Jersey court used the FAA void arbitration clauses “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Nevertheless, these rulings provide little hope for widespread change since arbitration clauses could easily be amended to include the language necessary to be un-voided. With legal precedent well-established—the Supreme Court is expected to reaffirm the validity of mandatory arbitration clauses in employee contracts this year—and the FAA still on the books, the only way

forward is through regulatory or legislative action that would rewrite the rules governing arbitration clauses. The Senate’s repeal of the CFPB’s ruling was a step in the wrong direction. For consumers in the financial industries under the agency’s purview, the rule would have allowed them to form class actions that would more easily and effectively recover damages resulting from corporate malfeasance. Given the larger payments that corporations would theoretically be doling out, this would have undoubtedly changed practices within the industry and created strong deterrents against misbehavior. In the wake of the CFPB regulation’s repeal, broader action, which can only be achieved through legislation overruling the FAA, must be taken. In 2016, Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Al Franken of Minnesota introduced a bill dubbed the Restoring Statutory Rights Act, which would have, according to George Slover of Consumers Union, “restore[d] the Federal Arbitration Act to what Congress intended, arbitration as a way for businesses to decide to handle their business disputes, but not as a way to insulate their misconduct from accountability to consumer.” Unfortunately, it died in Congress before being put to a vote. The need for pressure from advocacy groups so that this issue becomes a legislative priority in the next Democratic Congress is even more critical in light of this bleak prognosis. The Equifax hack provided a timely reminder of the ways that mandatory arbitration clauses serve business interests while failing to protect consumers and employees. By keeping proceedings in private and preventing class-action lawsuits, the current system insulates companies from accountability and perpetuates bad behavior. In their mandate that parties pursue claims individually—often at exorbitant expense— arbitration clauses prevent claimants from doing so in the first place. And even in cases where claims are pursued, a pro-business bias distorts proceedings. At a time when consumer and employee rights are slowly eroding, banning mandatory arbitration clauses provides a chance to restore balance and justice to a system which is sorely lacking both. Nicholas Lindseth ‘20 is an intended English and Political Science concentrator and a US Staff Writer at BPR. Infographic by Matthew Dudak.

PORNOGRAPHY’S PLACE IN SEX EDUCATION

rom Hollywood to Silicon Valley, Americans have long looked west for guidance on what is new and important. It is unsurprising, then, that as Americans begin to think more critically about the endemic sexism in American culture, California is at the forefront of discussion. The downfall of both movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick following allegations of sexual assault and harassment have elevated excoriations of individual evils to discussions of larger societal ills. Among these discussions, the legacy of late Playboy founder Hugh Hefner has remained unsettled. While some cannot move past the sometimes perversely oppressive effects of Hefner’s life work, others shower him with praise for coaxing sex out of the realm of taboo. Sexism undoubtedly lies at the core of these Californian scandals. Analyzing Hefner’s ideology and cultural influence helps reveal some of the modern roots of that problem. After all, the American pornography culture that Hefner helped create allows Americans ubiquitous access to sex: In 2016, Americans watched over 200 millennia worth of content on Pornhub, the world’s most popular pornographic website. The juxtaposition of the view of Hefner and of Weinstein highlights how Americans are reticent to discuss structural problems in sex culture, even when addressing individual cases of harassment and assault. Thus, to promote gender equality we should acknowledge the pervasive presence of pornography and its use as a tool in sex education. Commentators on Hefner’s legacy

correctly note that among the various progressive initiatives he championed through his media empire, including civil rights and sexual liberation, Hefner seldom emphasized gender equality, and instead popularized female objectification. But, perhaps surprisingly, a 2016 study showed that consumers who viewed non-violent porn had more egalitarian attitudes towards women than those who did not. Yet porn has been vilified in modern culture due to its often degrading depictions of sex, which have left adolescents with unrealistic and sometimes dangerous expectations. Although porn can precipitate sexual openness, its unrealistic and often violent nature justifies its position as a scapegoat for societal ills. Porn’s proliferation due to technological advancement makes knowing its impacts even more pressing. Without comprehensive and pragmatic sex education, adolescents look to the internet to learn about the birds and the bees. Many see watching porn as the only replacement for what dismal sex education courses and uptight parents cannot provide. Of college students in Great Britain, 60 percent say they use pornography as an instruction manual for sex, despite knowing it to be unrealistic. And the lines between violent and nonviolent porn are easily blurred. A 2010 study of 304 popular porn scenes showed that 90 percent depicted physical aggression towards women, and almost half showed verbal abuse. To offset these negative effects, American consumers can start by looking to minimize the effects of pornography—especially in its more violent iterations—on a generation of males who as a whole strongly support gender equality.

This can be achieved through more comprehensive sex education, which includes open discussions about the dishonesty of pornography. With Pornhub seeing 650 times as many visitors each month as the most visited sex education site in the US, it’s clear that the American approach to sex ed has failed the country's youth. Unfortunately, it has left teens using pornography as a supplement—or substitute—for their lackluster sex education. In contrast to the prudish educators in the United States, one professor at Aalborg University in Denmark suggested that pornography be used in sex education in order to dispel misconceptions and make the courses more realistic. By taking steps like this, we can decrease the stigma surrounding conversations about sex and promote a healthier culture. The United States is still brimming with misogyny, and porn is a product of this scourge. But it should also be seen as a contributor to our nation’s sexism: Its proliferation—aided in large part by Hugh Hefner’s empire—has resulted in the use of porn in place of proper sex education, leading to a continuation of gender-based violence. Minimizing the negative effects of porn on millennials and on gender equality should be a priority. Using pornography as a tool in comprehensive sex education could accelerate a paradigm shift away from the normalization of abuse and toward a more sexually open society.

Joseph Hinton ‘20 is an intended Political Science concentrator and a Copy Editor at BPR.

Brown Political Review

Shopping outside the box Walmart's departure as a good deal for rural America

In January of 2016, Walmart announced that it would be closing 154 of its locations in the US. This included all 102 Walmart Express stores—the company’s smallest type of store—which were intended to compete with stores in rural areas. And Walmart wasn’t alone in shutting its doors. Between 2015 and 2016, Target announced 13 store closures, Kmart 68, Sears, 10, Staples, 50, Gap, 175, and the list goes on. As a result of online giants like Amazon and Alibaba disrupting a wide variety of markets, traditional companies are being forced to close stores and adjust their business models to keep up. Walmart’s closures drew the most attention, and rightfully so. As

the world’s largest retailer, Walmart provides the clearest window into what happens to communities when a corporate giant leaves town. And it’s not just any kind of town that Walmart is leaving. Though the company’s stores are distributed evenly across urban and rural areas and higher- and lower-income neighborhoods, the January closures disproportionately affected poor, rural areas. Already struggling rural communities that face Walmart’s abrupt departure have to deal with the immediate economic consequences of a major employer leaving, exacerbating long-standing economic malaise brought on by inadequate resources.

Brown Political Review

Store closures compound the economic crisis and contribute to the growing feeling of abandonment that currently afflicts many rural communities. But these prospects, while dark, present an opportunity for small business to reemerge, igniting local economies and restoring a sense of autonomy in rural areas. The most direct harm stemming from Walmart’s departure is the disappearance of many consumer goods. Walmart began to enter rural communities a few decades ago and quickly boxed out other suppliers with its signature low prices. In many communities, small businesses buckled under the pressure to compete, leaving Walmart as the only game in town. A 2008 study found that opening a Walmart caused, on average, the loss of 150 retail jobs and $1.4 million in county payroll. A 2012 study confirmed that negative impact, showing that 4.4 to 14.2 local retail stores closed within 15 months of a Walmart opening. And when a Walmart closes, those former competitors cannot quickly reappear, leaving customers many miles away from basic necessities. The resulting scarcity can have critical impacts on standards of living. Walmart’s closures alone created new food deserts, and removed fresh produce and meat from 31 neighborhoods in 15 states. Access to healthful food is a matter of survival, not just convenience. What’s more, the negative effects of the closures extend beyond retail and groceries to the local economy at large. When Walmart was in these small towns, it boosted local spending on hotels, gas, phone cards, and more. Additionally, the company contributed heavily to the local tax base, often acting as the primary revenue source for localities strapped for cash. Walmart closures create a huge hole in funding, imperiling the provision of local government services and initiatives. These closures hurt on a personal level, too. Walmart is known for its cheap goods and sprawling stores—not for its customer service and

community relations. Unlike small businesses owned by community members, Walmart is an outsider in rural communities, a manifestation of a globalized economy continually growing in size and influence. Its takeover of and abrupt departure from these communities made small towns feel like a commodity being pawned for profit. As William Broome, the owner of a small hardware shop in Winnsboro, South Carolina, put it, “You feel like they used what they could get out of you, and then just pulled out and left.” It’s clear that Walmart closures inflict real harm on rural communities, economies, and individuals. This picture is understandably the most common narrative around these closures. But with every threat comes an opportunity, and the rural towns that Walmart left now have an opportunity and incentive for a real breakthrough. On the economic side, the hole that Walmart’s departure creates can be an opening for new businesses to take its place. Walmart’s aggressive price-cutting strategy may work for its profit-margin and its shareholders, but not always for consumers and communities. A review of studies found that Walmart store openings cause 50 percent more job losses than they create and increase the risk that small businesses in surrounding areas fold. And Walmart leaves little room for local innovation and entrepreneurial developments. Despite positive press for voluntarily raising its minimum wage, Walmart still pays such low wages that its employees often have to use SNAP benefits when buying food in their own stores. Walmart’s one-size-fits-all model harms communities indirectly as well. A study from Economic Development Quarterly found that rural areas with a higher concentration of small, locally-owned businesses saw an increase in per capita income growth, while areas with large, non-locally owned businesses saw a decrease. Small businesses led by community members are more attuned to the values and preferences of the people in 13

the areas where they operate, leading to a more efficient economy and happier customers. Fortunately, there are ways to spur this local development. It’s true that it takes time to regain the businesses that Walmart drove out when it arrived, but with targeted investments, policymakers can speed along the process and help small towns hurt by Walmart’s departure transition to a more locally-oriented economy. One option is to prioritize the Small Business Administration’s grant-finding services in areas that have been hit hardest by big-box store closures and are in most desperate need of essential goods. Newly created food deserts and regions where Walmart had become the dominant pharmacy stand out as targets for aid. Helping secure grants for small businesses would not only make it easier for producers to fill in product gaps, but would also reinvigorate local consumer bases, presenting opportunities for more businesses to thrive. A forward-looking solution is to work on expanding broadband access into rural areas. The small towns that Walmart left are usually not bustling technology hubs. Only 63 percent of rural adults report having a broadband connection at home, 10 percent less than US adults as a whole. Rural America also has slower internet, with 39 percent of rural areas lacking access to 25 megabits per second broadband speed, compared to only 4 percent in urban areas. While farm towns don’t have to turn into Silicon Valley to thrive, access to the internet is crucial for 21st-century economic success. Beyond towns affected by Walmart closures, boosting rural internet connectivity could bring greater prosperity to all rural areas. Small businesses whose customer bases are limited by the geography of rural areas could use the internet to expand their reach and solidify their profits. Rural communities that can receive vital goods and bring their products to the global market14

Brown Political Review

place via the internet are more likely to avoid dependence on a megastore as their economic hub. Perhaps even more important than the economic opportunity presented, Walmart’s exit gives rural Americans a chance to feel more in command of their communities. Walmart stores in small towns tried to impose their values onto the communities, rather than listening to them. For a segment of America that’s been left behind by rapidly advancing technology and a globalizing economy, community-wide efforts to redefine, revitalize, and redevelop can be a breath of fresh air and a way to regain autonomy. Rural voters who were driven by alienation and economic stagnation to vote for Trump—who has thus far shown little interest in tangibly improving their lot— can find a more productive and perceivable outlet through local economic and community development. Walmart’s departure from poor, rural areas is often seen as a problem, and in many cases it is. The loss of local

tax revenue, lower accessibility for food and other goods, and feelings of abandonment for hard-working communities all cause real damage, and Walmart shouldn’t be given a pass for inflicting it. But even if Walmart is rightly seen as a villain, there is still hope for these rural communities. The opportunity for local growth and community-oriented empowerment that can come from rebuilding economies Walmart crippled might just be the spark rural America needs to jump into the modern economy with a sense of purpose and belonging.

Aidan Calvelli ‘19 is a Political Science concentrator and an Editor-in-Chief at BPR. Illustrations by Eliza von Zerneck

Wong's Kitchen Dine in â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Take out Open 7 days a week 108 Waterman street - Providence, ri 02906

401-272-2188 Wongskitchenri.com

Tec hn

Code Red Ashley Chen Liability and the case for regulating code

Technologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Blind Spot Mary Dong

DNA Discrimination Olivia Nash

Seeds of the Silicon Savannah Michael Bass

Affordable eye care and the proliferation of tech Fixing the fears of genetic testing

Supporting homegrown talent in Africaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tech industry

o lo gy

Special Feature

Brown Political Review

code

red Liability and the case for regulating code As technology’s impact expands, the consequences of security vulnerabilities become steeper. In 2016, the software testing company Tricentis reported that 4.4 billion people and $1.1 trillion in assets were impacted by software failures. Among these failures was the misprescription of heart medication to 300,000 people in the UK’s National Health Service, a mistake that caused patients to suffer otherwise preventable heart attacks or strokes. Despite the potentially disastrous effects of software failure, the industry has no regulatory oversight. It is almost completely immune to both criminal and civil penalties in cases of negligence. To prevent catastrophic damage caused by the recklessness of unregulated firms, liability law must be extended to cover software firms, allow executives and programmers to be prosecuted for gross negligence, and force companies to publicly report all instances of preventable software failure. Software development is intrinsically risky because it is so abstract: It is impossible to test every possible execution of a program, meaning some problems just cannot be foreseen. In his book Software Engineering, Roger S. Pressman points out that for “even a small 100-line [program]…executing [it] less than twenty times may require 10 to the power of 14 possible paths to be executed.” For real-life systems, the possibility of testing is even more absurd: A Boeing 787’s software contains six million lines of code; the Chevy Volt, 10 million; a F-35 fighter jet, almost 25 million. Yet despite software’s huge potential for failure, software companies that sell proprietary products are rarely held liable for their mistakes. American cryptographer Bruce Schneier argues that the current legal system places an undue burden on the consumer: Although many parties are involved in

software attacks, our modern landscape places “100 percent of the burden” on users. Thus, the effects of a cyberattack or failure are borne by unsuspecting third parties rather than those responsible for the breakdown. In short, since companies are rarely legally responsible for the failures of their products, they have no reason to guard against failure. Perversely, the market rewards sloppiness by shelling out money for more features and quick releases. We have adopted a patch-and-release cycle where software is hastily launched

and then partially fixed patch after patch, ad nauseam. Some argue that the free market can sort it all out. After all, the cybersecurity industry is large and promising—worth almost $90 billion in 2017. But antivirus software is not a panacea. Just like biological viruses, which mutate too quickly for vaccines to be 100 percent effective, computer viruses are diverse, emerge constantly, and change quickly. To make matters worse, too many Americans buy into the false notion that the internet is so vast that a hacker is unlikely to target them.

Brown Political Review

the effects of a cyberattack or failure are borne by unsuspecting third parties rather than those responsible for the breakdown.

Computational power is now so advanced that it is feasible to scan the entire internet, making any publicly accessible, poorly secured IP device immediately vulnerable. Additionally, most users are unaware of the viruses on their computers that do not affect performance. More subtle viruses can recruit private computers to a botnet—a coordinated group of internet-connected devices infected and controlled by malware—often without the owners’ knowledge. For example, in 2010, a “Citadel” botnet infected five million computers and harnessed their power to steal $500 million from bank accounts over 18 months. But as Hoover Institution law associate Jane Chong writes, “many people lack reason to truly care that their computers are infected, because being part of a botnet does not especially harm them.” Even proprietary software—software with intellectual property protection—is written to be exempt from legal liability. For example, software is generally sold as a license rather than a product, removing culpability from the vendor unless specifically stated in the licensing agreement. In this way, the legal boilerplate shifts all risk to the user. And because virtually all software companies write similar disclaimers, there is no way for consumers to enter into a more favorable agreement with another provider. Consumers also cannot count on the government to punish negligence. Take, for example, Equifax, the credit reporting firm that recently released the personal information of 143 million Americans as a result of cybercrime. Although Equifax could have done much more to ensure its data was secure, its inaction was legal because there is no law explicitly criminalizing gross negligence in data security nor any precedent for prosecuting such malpractice under existing laws. Although bank executives and directors can be removed for unsafe and unsound practices, similar rules do not apply to Silicon Valley. Criminal justice is eons behind current technology. The only possible avenue to justice, then, is a class-action lawsuit. Unfortunately, this is often impossible for several reasons. First, tort law, which is routinely used in negligence cases, does not cover the badly written software that enables cybercrime, according to law professors Michael L. Rustad and Thomas H. Koenig. Rather, explains New York Times reporter Peter Henning, “negligence is used regularly only in federal criminal prosecutions for food and drug safety problems and environmental contaminations.” Further, application of the “responsible corporate officer doctrine,” under which corporate officials may be punished for offenses even without proof of personal bad intent or misconduct, is similarly

Special Feature

difficult. Again, the doctrine’s precedent of application has been typically limited to food and drug safety cases. Even if that doctrine’s previous applications were not so narrow, it would still lack the force to adequately incentivize security upgrades. The solution lies in legal reform. If courts consider software failure the responsibility of software companies, firms will change their behavior to avoid legal repercussions. By extending tort law, contract law, and the responsible corporate officer doctrine to data breaches and requiring that software be sold as a product rather than a license, we can incentivize responsible software development rather than let companies continue to release under-tested and over-bugged products without regard for the consequences of failure. Even without financial repercussions for software failure, simply requiring companies to provide the technical details of any attack would significantly encourage security and help other possible targets learn from each attack. Currently, fewer than 20 percent of software failures are disclosed and publicly analyzed. If disclosure was mandated, users could learn more about which companies suffer more frequent or significant security breaches and act accordingly, and companies would be further inclined to guard against vulnerabilities to attacks. In the 1960s, the legal system also had a hands-off approach in car safety cases, opting not to apply tort law even where accident victims claimed their injuries were due to negligent manufacturing. But due to growing public pressure and an increase in car accidents in the following 30 years, state and federal courts moved toward applying liability to defective and dangerous cars, and holding manufacturers responsible for not making a reasonable effort to prevent serious accidents. Increasing liability has been effective in the past in encouraging an under-regulated industry to improve the quality of its products. The same should be done for software today.

Ashley Chen ‘20 is an intended Computational Biology concentrator and US Staff Writer at BPR. Infographic by Matthew Dudak

Special Feature

Technology’s

Blind spot Affordable eye care and the proliferation of tech round the world today, 217 million individuals suffer from untreated but correctable visual impairment. Those in the more developed world who reap the benefits of contact lenses and cataract surgeries might find this figure surprising. However, a staggering portion of those in the developing world either remain unaware of treatment or unable to access it. Of those who suffer from vision impairment, 89 percent live in low- or middle-income countries, where access to eye care is severely compromised. And even though over three-quarters of vision impairment cases are avoidable, the unequal distribution of eye care resources has, quite literally, kept people in the dark. Eye care disparities shed light on an alarming trend: As innovation progresses at blistering speeds in the Western world, if even the

Brown Political Review

simplest technologies are only available to those able to pay, then development remains an impetus, rather than a solution, to inequality. Poor vision isn’t just a hindrance, it’s a disability. In regions where education is key to escaping the poverty cycle, children who cannot see the blackboard are put at a major disadvantage. In places where job opportunities are scarce, those with poor vision are practically excluded from the workplace. And in villages where the nearest ophthamologist’s clinic is hours away, the elderly can do nothing but watch their world slowly turn into an blur as their cataracts remain untreated. Unfortunately, the areas where good vision has the potential to most improve quality of life are also the places where accessible, affordable vision care is the most limited. A 2014 study that mapped human resources for eye care in 21 countries in sub-Saharan Africa found that the ratio between the population and certified optometrists was over 400,000 to 1. Comparing this to the ratio in Rhode Island—under 2,000 to 1—illustrates the dearth of healthcare practitioners available to treat and prevent eye diseases. But the scarcity of professionally trained specialists is not the only barrier to vision care in low- and middle-income

countries. A Cambridge Ophthalmological Symposium listed “awareness, bad services, cost, and distance” as the four obstacles that deter people from seeking cataract surgery in the developing world. These barriers also apply to the broader issue of vision care. And unlike the most popular solution to modern society’s problems, the solution to eye care inequity is not simply the advancement of technology. The two leading causes of global vision impairment are cataracts and uncorrected refractive errors, together accounting for 75 percent of all cases of untreated vision issues. In the US, cataract surgery, during which a patient’s natural lens is replaced with an artificial one, has a success rate of over 98 percent. For uncorrected refractive errors, a simple pair of prescription glasses will suffice to bring a patient’s world back into focus. But for those who make just a few dollars a day, finding an optometrist will do little good if a pair of glasses costs more than a week’s income. Fortunately, some have begun to realize that the true need for innovation lies in the distribution of technology. OneDollarGlasses is an organization dedicated to providing durable, affordable glasses to those living in the most remote, destitute regions of the world. The 2015

Brown Political Review

Unfortunately, the areas where good vision has the potential to most improve quality of life are also the places where accessible, affordable vision care is the most limited.

winner of the renowned Tech Award, OneDollarGlasses combines user-friendly production with cheap yet durable materials to create glasses for as little as one dollar per pair. In addition to giving clear vision to over 150 million people around the world, OneDollarGlasses has also provided numerous employment opportunities to citizens in the areas that need them most. Since each pair of glasses can be made at home with a non-electric bending machine, locals can easily be trained to become self-sustaining optical craftsmen. While OneDollarGlasses addresses the concern of cost, another organization called ADSPECS combats the barrier of distance. ADSPECS are self-adjustable glasses developed by Dr. Joshua Silver, an atomic physicist at Oxford University. Wearers of ADSPECS are able to adjust the thickness of their spectacles, giving themselves clear vision in less than two minutes. With the ability to continuously update their prescriptions, the glasses eliminate the need for patients to make arduous trips to their nearest optometrist. Though a pair of ADSPECS currently costs around $20, Silver is working to bring this down to one or two dollars. Already, 40,000 pairs of these glasses have been distributed in nations including India and China, the two most clinically myopic countries in the world, and the government of Ghana has ordered an additional 100,000 pairs to support literacy programs in rural villages. Though these private efforts to aid avoidable vision impairment are helping the lives of millions, much has yet to be done. The vision care model of the developed world must be modified to fit the needs of each individual nation, instead of simply imitating a standard Western framework. For instance, in places where ophthalmologists and optometrists are in short supply, these professionals should maximize the time they spend on major eye concerns while opticians or nurses perform less-demanding tests and clerical work. Training for ophthalmologists should focus more on addressing the most pressing eye concerns, reducing the time prospective eye surgeons spend in school, and maximizing their efforts in helping

Special Feature

patients. The US educational model, which requires an aspiring ophthalmologist to go through eight additional years of training after completing an undergraduate degree, is unfeasible for nations with a scarcity of cataract surgeons. In East Africa, for example, audits show that medical assistants who receive intensive training in cataract surgery can produce the same results as a procedure performed by a certified ophthalmologist can. Though far from ideal, with the help of portable microscopes and simple sanitation devices, surgeons can now perform cataract operations in people’s homes, which are often far from many surgical clinics. The staggering disparities in access to centuries-old technologies like glasses force us to reexamine the role of scientific development in a world increasingly defined by socioeconomic inequality. In a free market, investing in high-tech gadgets for high-income consumers is much more profitable than developing affordable, charity-driven technologies for all. Therefore, there must be added incentives for innovators to create products which serve the global poor. As the effectiveness of traditional international aid is increasingly questioned, Western governments should divert aid funds towards subsidizing technological distribution. In addition to state efforts, private investors can also fund specific case competitions and awards for humanitarian technologies. Such initiatives can broadcast the work done by past inventors and draw in ideas for life-changing technologies. In the more developed world, it is easy to take simple technologies like glasses for granted. After all, the most useful innovations flourish more often in well-off regions, and are thus tailored to the convenience of the world’s upper class. But when these technologies become the prerequisites to a secure, fulfilling life, they should be made available to all. Perhaps with more attention from the private sector and governments, this solution to inequality can finally come into focus.

Mary Dong ‘21 is an intended Applied Math–Economics concentrator and an Associate Editor at BPR. Illustrations by Franco Zachazewski

Special Feature

Brown Political Review

DNA Discrimination

enetic testing is one of the most groundbreaking technologies of the modern age. The advent of human genome sequencing has expanded medical research and enabled services such as 23andMe to offer affordable and accessible snapshots of an individual’s genetic risks. Despite the newfound ease of testing, concerns about privacy and fears of discrimination have stopped many people from getting tested or participating in medical research. The laws currently in place to guard against genomic discrimination have glaring loopholes, and, out of their own financial interest, health insurance providers and employers have argued for scaling back those protections. However, genetic testing’s potentially revolutionary effects on modern medicine and individual health are too great to let the fear of genetic discrimination to stand in its way. The government, rather than scaling back protections, should work to expand genetic privacy rights to encourage the testing necessary to achieve the promise of personalized medicine. Predictive genetic testing was first offered to the population on a broad scale in the 1990s, when breast cancer was found to correlate with a mutated BRCA gene. This specific discovery led to testing for the mutation in millions of women with a familial history of cancer. Once the human genome was fully sequenced in 2003, the possibilities for genetic testing exploded. Rather than testing for just one specific gene, individuals could test for risks in patterns spanning multiple genes. Start-ups like 23andMe, founded in 2006, rushed to the marketplace with inexpensive at-home tests, promising to identify the genetic risk of cancer and Alzheimer’s in exchange for two milliliters of saliva and a few hundred dollars. Knowing the genetic risk of medical conditions can be life-saving. A woman who tests positive for the BRCA gene, for instance, can undertake hormonal therapy or undergo a prophylactic mastectomy to reduce her odds of

Fixing the fears of genetic testing

developing breast cancer. A test revealing the cystic fibrosis TCR gene mutation could tell someone whether it is safe to have children. Despite the great potential of genomic testing, concerns over privacy and discrimination persist. In 2008, rapid advancements in genetic sequencing prompted Congress to pass the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which prohibited discrimination based on genetic information by health insurance providers and employers. Yet GINA only shields individuals from discrimination in health insurance without extending protections to other aspects of life. In fact, GINA fails to protect against genetic discrimination in schooling, housing, mortgage lending, and even other types of insurance. Today, life insurance companies are legally able to deny applications on the basis of the applicant’s genetic testing results. For this reason, it is not uncommon for genetic services and counselors to advise clients to secure any desired life insurance before undergoing testing. The same is true for commercial transactions. In California, genetic information can legally be used as a basis for approving or denying real estate transactions. The mortgage application of a woman who has tested positive for the BRCA gene may be denied on the grounds of her predicted shortened life span and subsequent inability to pay the loan in full. While GINA explicitly targets health care and employment, loopholes exist in protection from genetic discrimination in those industries. Though employers are technically barred from requiring access to genetic test results, they are able to gain access after an employee’s request for disability accommodation. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, an employer is permitted to obtain the health records of an employee, which include the results of genetic testing. Employers may also inadvertently gain access to genetic information when notations referencing genetic testing are included in other

HR 1313 would force Americans to choose between the privacy and safety of their medical records and affordable healthcare potentially having a chilling effect on voluntary genetic testing.

Brown Political Review

medical records within the employer’s access. For example, a woman undergoing hormonal therapy in response to testing positive for the BRCA mutation could have a reference to that testing in her medical records. In cases where genetic testing results are accidentally revealed, the protections in GINA do not apply. These loopholes fuel concerns about genetic testing—concerns which may be slowing medical advancements. In 2015, President Obama launched the Precision Medicine Initiative to advance genetic testing and research on the human genome. Obama had worked on this bill since 2007, but refused to allow the bill to progress until genetic discrimination was regulated. The plan, which today is called “All of Us,” aims to collect genetic information and DNA samples from 1 million Americans by 2019. The plan is designed to develop patient-personalized procedures, as opposed to the onesize-fits-all approach of today’s medical methods. The advancements from such a program would be beneficial to modern medicine by providing more accurate diagnoses and effective medical treatments. Recently, however, the project faced a major setback when 30 percent of those who volunteered to provide their genetic material for the study refused to also provide access to their health records. Many cited concerns of privacy as the basis for

their refusal. Unfortunately, Congress seems to be working to limit the existing protections instead of closing the loopholes. This year, Congress is trying to pass the Preserving Employee Wellness Act (HR 1313), which would eliminate certain protection rights under GINA, in favor of genetic testing in workplace wellness programs. These programs, which were originally developed during the Obama administration to encourage healthy living, incentivize employees to turn over medical information—which sometimes includes genetic testing results—in exchange for discounted rates on health insurance. While these wellness programs are not mandatory, businesses can offer participation incentives that border on coercion. Though employers would not legally be able to force employees to undergo genetic testing as part of these programs, employees who refuse could face severe penalties. As part of current workplace wellness programs, employers have charged employees 30 to 50 percent more on their health insurance for not participating in health surveys. These additional costs are a powerful motivator, so many employees may undergo testing and provide the results to secure affordable insurance. Upon obtaining genetic information indicating that an employee

Special Feature

had a risk of a disease, an employer would be free to use that information to discriminate against the employee. HR 1313 would force Americans to choose between the privacy and safety of their medical records and affordable healthcare—potentially having a chilling effect on voluntary genetic testing. The threat of a GINA rollback comes when genomic medicine is blossoming. Scientists continue to look for ways to improve genetic knowledge, acquire more genetic samples, and recruit more underrepresented groups to contribute to the databases. At a time when more protections against discrimination are needed, a bill like HR 1313 would erode the existing protections and obstructs the advancement of modern medicine; the focus of genetic policy reform should rest on increasing protection rights instead of eliminating what little privacy and safeguards are left under GINA. The benefits of genetic testing should not be curtailed by the fear of genetic discrimination.

Olivia Nash ‘20 is an intended International Relations and Slavic Studies concentrator and Associate Editor at BPR. Infographic by Louise TIsch

Special Feature

Brown Political Review

Seeds of the Silicon Savannah Supporting homegrown talent in Africa’s tech industry

The landscape of technological innovation in sub-Saharan Africa has been aptly dubbed the “Silicon Savannah.” The IT sector in the region has truly become a transplant of Silicon Valley. Google, Facebook, IBM, and others have ventured into the continent, spurring innovation and laying internet infrastructure in cities like Nairobi. President Obama organized the Global Entrepreneurship Summit there in 2015, applauding Kenya for leading the way in African innovation. Yet despite this productive energy, funding for the Silicon Savannah is drying up. Disrupt Africa, a news site covering the African technology ecosystem, collected data showing that total capital raised by Kenyan startups declined from $47 million in 2015 to just $10.5 million in 2016. Western donors and agencies like USAID were more cautious about giving funding to start-ups, instead focusing on nurturing talent through mentorship and innovation hubs throughout the sub-Sa-

haran region. These membership-based hubs, often sponsored by western IT companies, offer creative co-working spaces and IT training programs, but can crowd out true competitive progress in the Silicon Savannah. The hubs expose a critical flaw in regional development: Western tech companies are creating a market for their own products and services, not supporting homegrown industry. On paper and in principle, the network of innovation hubs in the Silicon Savannah shows symbolic growth. iHub, the largest innovation lab in Kenya, has launched over 170 start-ups since 2010, with 16,565 registered members. Its partners include such giants as Facebook, Google, and the World Bank. Outside of Nairobi, academic institutions and local entrepreneurs alike have built tech hubs in cities across the country. But Nairobi is starved of growth capital, so entrepreneurial development is diffused in an oversaturated market of start-ups. Companies are flopping and inno-

Brown Political Review

vative energy is dropping. The misguided confidence in these innovation hubs shares some of the blame. Despite this shaky status quo, no one is more confident in the innovation hubs than Western technology companies. Google, in particular, has made obvious its intentions to bring Africa online. The company has set up internet infrastructure and mentorship programs to help start-ups. It aims to train 10 million people in internet skills, mentor 100,000 software developers, and provide $3 million in equity-free financing to 60 companies. iHub is one of Google’s chief partners in this goal—the two organizations co-hosted a “Launchpad Start” boot camp in 2016 to give start-ups actionable, in-person mentoring. While its productive pedigree and partnerships appear promising, iHub has not met profit expectations. The missing piece, once again, is capital. For foreign companies, supporting these innovation hubs is a great marketing venture both for positive publicity and for setting up a consumer market in the Silicon Savannah. But investing in Kenyan start-ups comes with perceived risks and daunting liabilities. Moreover, if Silicon Savannah wants to nurture truly disruptive companies, investors will need to risk their precious capital. Nairobi’s tech sector is nascent enough to excuse the lack of game-changing start-ups, but its novelty is not the cause. These innovation hubs are insufficient surrogates for venture capitalists. Larger international conglomerates often subsume the few ideas that gain traction in the region. For example, during the fraught 2017 presidential election in Kenya, American-educated Kenyan activist Ory Okolloh helped create a not-for-profit website called Ushahidi. The platform pioneered technology that aggregated eyewitness accounts of violence using text messages and Google Maps. The website made headlines as a beacon of innovation in the continent. Google hired Okolloh as its African Policy Manager, appropriating her innovation before it had an opportunity to further develop. After a few years at Google, Okolloh left to join Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment fund started by eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar that provides capital to these nascent start-ups. The organization works closely with iHub, providing funding and connections for the lab. One of the co-founders of Ushahidi, Erik Hersman,

also happens to be the founder of iHub, and is working to diversify its sources of funding. Hersman published a blog post titled “iHub: the Next Chapter,” in which he pledged “to tighten up our service offerings and make them more profitable, and to help us figure out how not to just find startups but to grow the ones that are getting traction… We strongly believe that iHub can play a key role in this phase.” iHub plans to be fully self-funded in the coming years, independent of the former 30 percent funding funneled in by its Western partners. Hersman and Okolloh both recognize the need for revenues and global scaling in the African tech sector. With innovative energy already present, the task now is to translate that energy into a profitable industry to boost the economy of the region as a whole. The innovation hub model is not inherently flawed—in fact, it has tremendous potential to transform the Silicon Savannah if the hubs consolidate their efforts. With time, investment and homegrown innovation could turn Nairobi into the tech capital of Africa.

Michael Bass ‘20 is a Political Science and Modern Culture & Media concentrator and a Chief of Staff at BPR. Illustrations by Shirley Lau

Special Feature

Western tech companies are creating a market for their own products and services, not supporting homegrown industry.

Rebooting Regulation

echnology and politics are deeply intertwined in America. Data analytics drives campaign strategy and policy decisions, and social media is an integral medium for political information and discourse. This influence has allowed those who drive technological growth—the employees and executives in Silicon Valley—to wield their political influence in unprecedented ways. The outspoken beliefs of technology magnates such as PayPal co-founder Peter Theil have contributed to the trope of some Silicon Valley businessmen as libertarians. While Thiel did donate $1.25 million to Donald Trump’s campaign, he stands out as an anomaly. Technologists wielded their economic power heavily in favor of Hillary Clinton, donating $60 to her campaign for each dollar donated to Trump. But even this comparison 26

ignores the nuances in the ideologies of those in Silicon Valley. A Stanford study released this fall is the first to take an in-depth look at 600 of Silicon Valley’s leaders’ seemingly paradoxical politics. At first glance, this group is consistently liberal: They show overwhelming support for left-leaning causes such as universal healthcare, public investment in education, and redistributive economic programs. One sharp deviation—opposition to labor regulation—undermines this otherwise straightforward liberal narrative. Just 18 percent of Democrats want to see a decrease in labor unions’ influence compared to 74 percent of technology entrepreneurs who do. Furthermore, 82 percent of technology entrepreneurs believe firing workers is too difficult and the government should relax related regulations. This

The

proportion is quite similar to that of Republicans, while a majority of Democrats support increasing protections from firing. But this one deviation can’t be used to portray technologists as conservative: Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have a propensity to support racially tolerant, socially liberal policies that are typically supported by Democrats. In fact, technology entrepreneurs fell further left than the sample of Democrats on a variety of social and economic issues, from same-sex marriage and abortion to support for programs benefitting the poor. Still, the Democratic platform reads “Democrats will make it easier for workers, public and private, to exercise their right to organize and join unions.” This glaring point of disagreement could upset the equilibrium of the current Democratic coalition. As

unortho d ox views o f tec h entrepeneurs

tech leaders continue to assert influence and grow as a donor base for Democrats, they could challenge labor-friendly attitudes while pushing the party leftward on other issues. Tech’s influence is already strong, as lawmakers have increasingly backed off on efforts to regulate the industry. President Obama’s relative lack of concern over tech’s expanding market power shows how strong the sector has become since President Clinton’s extensive efforts to break up Microsoft’s perceived operating system market monopoly in the 1990s. At face value, the desire to decrease regulation seems to be self-serving for entrepreneurs. Yet, their tendency to support redistributive policies seems contrary to that very self-interest. In this case, tech elites seem to be overriding their selfishness in favor of socially beneficial programs.

But when it comes to regulation, they are not acting only out of self-interest: They also oppose regulation on the philosophical grounds that it unfairly stifles entrepreneurial freedom. A major way technologists can enact this ideology is through campaign donations. Tech analyst Tim Bajarin even expects technology executives to begin seeking office in greater numbers. While the industry wants to stay separate from the government, the current political climate and politicians’ perceived lack of technological knowledge could motivate some to engage more directly in politics. Already, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s 2017 outreach initiative sparked speculation about a 2020 presidential run, despite his repeated denial of the rumors. The US has a long history of businessmen campaigning for office on their corporate record: a tech leader running

would hardly be outside the norm. The wealth of the technology sector is growing, and a skyrocketing share of the wealthiest Americans have made their money in tech. For now, their campaign donations and support are going to Democrats. But with technologists’ dislike of the labor regulations Democrats have traditionally championed, the party could soon face the need to reconcile its historical platform with this powerful bloc’s unique ideology.

Julia Gilman ‘20 is an intended Applied Math–Economics concentrator and a Data Associate at BPR.

281 Thayer St Providence, RI 02906 401-453-0479 10 am-6 pm monday-saturday Bring this ad and get 5% off 28

DEVOLUTION

Brown Political Review

The World

DI L E M M A How the Franco-era state of autonomies jeopardizes Spain’s unity

n the relatively peaceful world of European politics, governments rarely reach into the toolbox of physical coercion. After all, sending riot police to club citizens with truncheons in full view of TV cameras seldom wins over hearts and minds. Thus, when Catalan voters cast their ballots on October 1 in a controversial referendum on their region’s independence from Spain, observers were shocked by the forceful response of Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. 27 Rajoy’s government attempted to stop the vote under judicial order.

World

In Barcelona, police in riot gear sought to block voters’ access to voting booths with batons, tear gas, and rubber bullets. This heavy-handed response has drawn widespread criticism, but it tells us less about repression than it does about the conflicting imperatives of politics and the law: Madrid’s response has been legally justified, though politically unwise. The results of the referendum indicated that Catalonian support for independence was a whopping 92 percent. However, the credibility of this sweeping majority was marred by low turnout, since many opponents of independence boycotted the vote. The ensuing weeks-long standoff culminated in a unilateral declaration of independence by the Catalan regional government. Desperate to keep Catalonia under control, Madrid has imposed direct rule over the Autonomous Community through a nuclear option in Spain’s constitution, marking the first time the clause has been triggered in the country’s democratic history. Madrid has since dissolved the Catalan government and called snap elections for the region in December. This move offers some short-term respite, but fails to tackle the issues at the heart of the crisis: Spain’s flawed constitutional design and the pitfalls of excessive regional autonomy. Drafted in 1978 during Spain’s transition to democracy, the Spanish constitution is a compromise between federalists seeking a plurinational state with significant regional autonomy, and centralists striving to preserve the country’s unity. The result is a unitary but highly decentralized state in which significant powers of self-government are granted to Autonomous Communities such as Catalonia. At the same time, the constitution affirms the “indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation.” The upside of this arrangement is considerable regional self-government, with the exact powers laid out in statutes of autonomy differing from region to region. The Catalan statute is among the broadest, granting its regional government, the Generalitat, extensive control over education, taxation, health, culture, environment, and security—including its own police force. The arrangement differs from full-fledged federalism in that Madrid retains the authority

Brown Political Review

to suspend these powers. However, the principle of territorial inviolability, appropriate as it may have seemed in the context of paving the uncertain path towards democracy, now does little but invite escalation. It turns separatist aspirations—essentially political projects—into unlawful attacks against the country’s most fundamental legal principles. As a result, even symbolic gestures towards independence, such as a nonbinding independence referendum in 2014, have come under fire from the judiciary. Likewise, Carles Puigdemont and his cabinet, who organized this year’s vote, have been charged with rebellion, sedition, and misuse of public funds—crimes for which they could face up to 30 years in prison. For the central government, the case is clear: Catalan leaders’ defiance of the constitutional court subverts democratic order and represents an attack on the rule of law. In the eyes of Madrid, therefore, any political negotiations with Puigdemont are out of the question. This is not unreasonable. Using the outcome of an illegal vote as leverage in negotiations, as Puigdemont tried to do following the October referendum, does not align with democratic principles. Yet the issue with Madrid’s strategy is not that it is unjust. Rather, it’s that it is politically self-defeating in the long run. By creating political martyrs on the altar of separatism, the central government plays into the hand of Catalan separatists, who claim that intervention by the Spanish state is oppression masquerading as defense of the law. This narrative has become central to the case for separation. Catalan leaders have complained that “in the Spanish state, the law is not the same for everybody…We have been condemned for defending ideas that are not liked.” Research suggests that casting Catalonia as the victim of unjust oppression makes voters much more committed to the cause of independence.   If Madrid wants to put a lasting end to the conflicts in Catalonia, it must accept that an allout legal war on separatism will likely prove counterproductive. In fact, reforming the constitution to provide a legal space for independence referenda could take much wind out of the separatists’ sails. Some polls suggest that, despite the lopsided referendum results, the majority of Catalans are opposed to independence. Support for independence peaked at 49 percent in 2013 before sinking

Brown Political Review

Desperate to keep Catalonia under control, Madrid has imposed direct rule over the Autonomous Community through a nuclear option in Spain's constitution.

back to 35 percent by July 2017, according to the Catalan government’s own Center for Opinion Studies. Madrid could succeed in allowing a binding referendum and encouraging opponents of independence to vote against it, therein dealing a blow to the separatists without reinforcing a narrative of oppression. However, the odds of such a strategy shift occurring are remote at best. The volatility of public opinion and the unpredictable dynamics of political campaigning make it incredibly risky for the central government to open up a legal path toward independence. Moreover, some observers have noted that the current escalation benefits Rajoy’s center-right People’s Party by exploiting disagreements over self-determination between Spain’s two main left-wing parties, the Socialist Party and Podemos. Rajoy seems to have settled on a strategy of attrition rather than reform, hoping to eventually sap the independence movement of its energy and have it collapse from within.   Others have argued that Madrid should resolve the crisis by granting Catalans greater autonomy—a promising but fraught strategy. Catalan leaders long focused their energies on securing greater regional autonomy rather than outright secession, and many argue that Rajoy’s steadfast refusal to make concessions fanned the flames of separatism. The centerpiece of this push was a revised statute of autonomy setting new terms for Catalan self-government. The deal, which passed all legislative hurdles by 2006, introduced broad changes spanning the areas of language, law, and taxation, among others. In 2010, however, a legal challenge by Rajoy’s People’s Party and several other Autonomous Communities led the supreme court to strike down or amend several of the statute’s provisions. The court scaled back increases to the region’s judicial and fiscal autonomy, struck out sections that gave the Catalan language privileged status over Castilian Spanish in administration, and ruled that while the statute could refer to Catalonia as a “nation,” this description had no legal meaning. The court’s intervention sparked outrage and mass protests in Catalonia, prompting then-president Artur Mas to vow to push for an independence referendum. To de-escalate tensions, Madrid could offer concessions on fiscal autonomy— long a sticking point in relations with the Catalans. As the country’s richest province in terms of economic output, Catalonia is a net contributor to the central state’s budget, usually paying around 10 billion euros more in annual taxes than it gets back. This move would not be unprecedented: Catalan

World

leaders have long dreamed of copying the Basque Country’s fiscal arrangement with Madrid. A wealthy, albeit smaller region with a turbulent history of violent separatism, the Basque Country enjoys near-complete fiscal autonomy and only pays an annual quota to Madrid to cover the costs of common expenses such as defense and infrastructure. But with an economy almost 3 times the size of the Basque Country’s, Catalonia is unlikely to obtain such a profitable deal, as this would cut off more than 10 percent of the central government’s budget. Devolution in other areas is possible but risky, considering that Catalonia already has many of the trappings of an independent state. The regional government has significant powers to shape the region’s social and cultural landscape, often in ways that undermine its anchoring in Spanish society. Catalan schools, for example, tend to prioritize the Catalan language over Castilian Spanish, while history syllabi place emphasis on the historical subjugation of Catalonia by Spain. This may explain why support for independence tends to be highest among young voters who have gone through Catalan’s modern education system. Any further concessions to the Generalitat should be carefully weighed to avoid exacerbating this dynamic. For now, the leadership in Madrid appears unwavering in its aggressive strategy. However, if Madrid is serious about finding a long-term solution, it must address the structural issues that have allowed the current crisis to spiral out of control. Chief among them is a constitutional framework that prevents separatists from putting independence to the test in legal, binding referendums, which allows them to blame their failures on Madrid and the courts. But even if Rajoy and his government rule out constitutional reform, they must recognize that effective governance demands more than punishing transgressions of the law. It requires the ability to signal to voters—including those in Catalonia—that their concerns are taken seriously. Accomplishing this may entail some concessions to Catalan leaders, but such compromises need to reinforce, rather than undermine, the coexistence that devolution is meant to enable.

Victor Brechenmacher ‘18 is a Political Science concentrator and an Associate Editor at BPR. Illustrations by Julie Benbassat 31

Connection not found When governments pull the plug on the internet Between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016, there were 81 government-ordered disruptions to internet access across the globe. Of these, 36 were full, nationwide internet shutdowns. The varied justifications given by rulers as to why they pulled the plug make the issue complicated to tackle; worse, it’s possible that many such rationales belie the true intentions of those who order the shutdowns. When protests erupted over the molestation of a young girl by a soldier in the Kashmir region of India in April 2016, authorities restricted internet access to stifle dissent and prevent further protest. The police publicly stated that service was restricted merely to prevent the spread of rumors. And in July 2016, the Erdogan administration in Turkey—known silencers of any dissent—throttled social media websites after a suicide bombing killed 45 in Istanbul, but flat-out denied manipulating internet access. Rulers often justify disrupting internet access as a response to national security and public safety threats. Even President Trump suggested in a tweet that terrorists be stopped by an internet “cut off.” Yet in most cases, governments’ motivations are more sinister, reflecting issues endemic not to the internet but rather to the regimes themselves. Even in situations in which the government believes that shutting off the internet is a response to a legitimate problem, using it as a solution ends up creating even more issues, leaving citizens, businesses, and governments worse off. Internet access is not a luxury; it is a human right. Last summer, the United Nations unanimously added Section 32 to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet.” And it’s easy to see why: Across the world, internet access has become imperative to businesses, organizations, and social movements. Yet in many countries, the government has enormous power to shut down the internet, often because telecommunications infrastructure is publicly-owned or because there are few telecommunications providers in the first place. Though despotic governments may use internet shutdowns as a powerful tool, this tool may actually cut against their own interests. A study out of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution estimated that the worldwide internet shutdowns between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016 cost $2.4 billion in GDP, not accounting “for tax losses or drops in investor, business, and

consumer confidence.” In the Republic of the Congo, an internet shutdown was estimated to have cost $72 million, nearly one percent of its 2015 GDP. Worse, internet shutdowns can disrupt hospitals and classrooms, interfering with proper medical care and impeding students’ ability to learn. Taking away these basic services could lead to more dissent than whatever prompted the shutdown in the first place. Governments considering an internet shutdown should remember the economic and political ramifications of such a move, if not the humanitarian ones. Though some governments may have legitimate reasons to shut down the web, most use excuses of public safety and security concerns to obscure their true reasons for restricting free and open communication. #KeepItOn, a campaign by advocacy organization Access Now, tracks governments’ public statements about shutdowns. It ranks the four most commonly stated rationales to be protecting public safety, stopping rumors, or the dissemination of illegal content, safeguarding school exams, and enhancing national security. In contrast, it ranks the top four suspected motives to be stopping protests, quelling political instability, controlling elections, and controlling information. No matter how guarded their intentions, internet shutdowns often foster the dissent they were intended to suppress. The most common reason governments give for disrupting the internet—to shut down protest for public safety—exemplifies this point. While stopping violent protests helps maintain public safety, restricting full internet access does not. Protests themselves are not inherently dangerous to civilians—in fact, a large factor in the breakdown of nonviolent protests into violence is repression from the state. Jonathan Pinckney, a research fellow at the Sie Cheou-Kang Center for International Security and Diplomacy, says “violent turns are not simply emotional responses to government brutality, but rather follow a more rational calculus by movement participants who see nonviolent action being met with government violence over and over again.” Thus, when governments shut down access to the internet, they put a lid on discontent that could soon boil over. When violent protests ensue anyway, internet disruptions make people unable to contact friends and family. People who have been injured may not be able to receive necessary care in hospitals,

Brown Political Review

and people may be unable to reach local law enforcement. Even with all the evidence against shutting down the internet, a nervous executive could still be tempted if the option is available. Luckily, there are steps that companies, citizens, and other branches of government can take to protect against internet shutdowns. As of 2012, 61 countries had only one or two companies providing internet service. Centralized telecommunications create greater risk of internet disruption by government officials. National legislatures should pass measures to encourage competition among internet service providers and overhaul existing laws that allow executives to easily shut down the internet. The latter is particularly important because outdated or overly broad legislation often leaves room for internet access to be restricted by the government. India’s 42 shutdowns between January and August 2017 were justified using the Telegraph Act of 1885, a fairly archaic standard. And even recent laws

allow governments to order shutdowns and takeovers in times of national emergency, with little criteria for what qualifies a situation as an emergency. The international community also has a role to play: International law that guides protocols for internet shutdowns must be updated to be more specific. There should be a stricter set of guidelines for service restriction orders (SROs), requests from governments to service providers to “restrict services on their networks.” The GSM Association, a group of mobile network operators around the world, put forward in their 2017 Mobile Policy Handbook that SROs should be discouraged. It also called for governments to inform citizens about the issuing of SROs. In making requests for restricting access, governments should make clear the reasoning and legal standing for doing so. Similarly to how warrants are obtained by police officers, governments should have the burden to prove to an impartial judge that the internet is

The World

directly linked to a genuine threat that is unfixable without shutting it down altogether. The international community must also increase pressure on countries that make a habit of shutting down internet access. While the United Nations’ addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a good first step, it’s important that countries consider internet disruption with equal weight as other human rights violations. As the internet becomes more interwoven with the daily lives of people all around the world, governments would do well to tread carefully; shutting off the internet could spark consequences far worse than leaving it on.

Angie Kim ‘20 is an intended Computer Science and Public Policy concentrator and a Managing Editor at BPR. Illustrations by Ellen He

World

Brown Political Review

Linguistic Life Support What goverments should do about dying languages

f, like Ludwig Wittgenstein, you believe that “the limits of my language are the limits of my world,” then your world is getting smaller. Experts estimate that over half of the 6 to 7 thousand spoken languages will become extinct by the year 2100, and the vast majority of languages have fewer than 10,000 native speakers left. Language death is hardly a new phenomenon. Throughout history, some languages have evolved while others have fallen out of use. Sometimes, these losses can be attributed to processes of assimilation in an increasingly interconnected globe. Scottish Gaelic, for example, was gradually replaced without a conscious government policy. But in many cases, language death results from direct action, not natural deterioration. Colonialism and globalization have hastened the endangerment of many tongues throughout the world. Government policies often privilege one language over another, sometimes leading to oppression so severe that it can be considered a sort of linguicide. In recent years, interest in protecting endangered languages has surged, and governments across the world have attempted to stem those languages’ decline. Even when languages fade from use through uncoerced processes of assimilation, they are still worth protecting. Only one third of current languages are accounted for by a writing system, so the demise of a language often implies the loss of a culture’s entire oral tradition and body of knowledge. Furthermore, language diversity is of enormous scientific interest, offering a window into myriad ways of seeing and processing the world around us. In the words of Columbia University linguist John McWhorter, languages “are variations on a cross-cultural perception of this thing called life… surely that is something worth caring about.” Languages are inextricably linked to cultural identity. While culture exists beyond language, language is a powerful conduit for connection and community. Because it implies internal unity and separation from an outside other, a common language has often been weaponized by nationalist movements across the globe. As a result, even establishing what

counts as a language is often an exercise more political than scientific. Linguists joke that a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy. The official language of the Valencian Community in Spain, for example, is Valencian, even though it is indistinguishable from Catalan. Similarly, citizens of Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro all speak closely related but legally distinct varieties of the same language. This leads to curious arrangements: In some Bosnian towns, children at the same school head to separate classrooms to be taught in languages that differ in little more than their names. Given language’s power to unite, it is hardly surprising that regimes throughout

Brown Political Review

history have depended on oppressive linguistic homogenization policies to suppress dissent. Often, homogenization efforts went hand in hand with the spread of public educationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the classroom is a perfect place to impose the dominant language. In 19th-century Wales, children were punished for speaking Welsh rather than English in schools, a common policy in countries dealing with linguistic diversity. Indigenous children in the United States and Canada were forced into residential schools where they were forbidden from speaking in their native tongues and were physically and sexually abused when caught doing so. For the modern nation-state and its growing administrative apparatus, a common language was both

a tool of cohesion and a matter of expediency. The states that emerged from these policies were stable and efficient, but the costs involved were immense. The rise of colonialism also opened a particularly ugly chapter in the history of linguistic hegemony. Admittedly, the imposition of language onto the conquered has existed throughout history, from the Inca of South America to the aboriginal peoples of Oceania. But through their bureaucracy and education systems, European colonizers imposed their languages with ruthless efficacy. Local languages were banned, or at the very least systematically depreciated. Illogical colonial geography that confined many disparate peoples within arbitrary

World

borders meant that even when indigenous languages were accorded some recognition, one local tongue was privileged, often controversially, over others. British rulers in India, for instance, worsened a long-running political dispute over the relationship between Urdu and Hindi, distinct standardized versions of the same Hindustani continuum, by granting privileged administrative status to Urdu over Hindi. Decolonization only underscored the importance of language as a political tool. In many former colonies, government affairs and education are conducted in the languages of past colonizers, even when few citizens speak them as a first language. English is the sole official language of Namibia, for example, even though less

World

Even establishing what counts as a language is often an exercise more political than scientific.— linguists joke that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.

Brown Political Review

than 3 percent of the population uses it at home. In other instances, it was too controversial to anoint one of the many local languages over the others, leaving the colonial language in place. According to India’s 1949 constitution, English was to be phased out as an administrative language, but efforts to impose Hindi as a national language faced resistance from speakers of other languages, so the use of English persists. On the other hand, decolonization has finally given governments across the world the opportunity to salvage their local languages. Often, this means finally teaching them in schools; Haiti has recently allowed Haitian Creole as a medium of instruction rather than the rarely-spoken French, a policy that could help quell exclusiveness in education. New Zealand has officially recognized the Maori language since 1987 and the government has spearheaded efforts to save it. Australia and Mexico have implemented similar programs for indigenous languages. Meanwhile, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages commits its 33 signatory states to protect and promote the use of such languages. While renewed interest in promoting minority languages is preferable to the homogenizing goals of the past, new government programs can be just as harmful. Promotion of local languages can substitute one form of linguistic hegemony for another. After the end of the Francoist dictatorship in Spain, which suppressed all local languages other than Castilian Spanish, provinces began to promote the use of other historical languages, sometimes with excessive zeal. Pupils in Catalonia, for example, are educated almost exclusively in Catalan, even if they are among the 55 percent of the population that considers Spanish their mother tongue. This linguistic nationalism has been used to fuel the region’s recent secessionist stance and stands in stark contrast to the model employed by other Spanish Autonomous Communities. The Basque Country, for example, allows parents to opt for a bilingual education or one in the tongue of their choosing for their children. Worse, ethno-linguistic fervor can at times lead to policies that are completely out of sync with the people’s lived reality. In Mumbai, for instance, local leaders have mandated that all shops display signs written in Marathi, even though most residents cannot read the language. English is a prerequisite for any high-paying job as well as all higher education in India, yet many public schools use only native languages for instruction. Nationalist politicians defend this

system, but often send their own children to English-language private schools. Complicating the political calculus is that keeping languages alive can be enormously expensive, requiring money that could be spent on other programs. The European Union’s commitment to supporting linguistic diversity has caused its translation and interpretation budget to top 1 billion euros per year. Yet those who speak minority languages in places like Ireland, Luxembourg, and other EU countries most often also speak another more common one, meaning that all the money and labor used to translate countless EU documents doesn’t much improve government accessibility. Even when significant money and energy are devoted to protecting a language, success can be elusive. The case of the Irish language is instructive. Study of the language has long been compulsory in Ireland, yet the policy has done little to revive its social use. Even in areas of the country where Irish remains the main community language—known as the Gaeltacht—fluency is declining, and despite government efforts, only 25 percent of households in those areas were fluent in 2003. These statistics offer a cautionary tale—any efforts aimed at reviving languages may ultimately prove ineffective. Few studies have evaluated approaches to minority language policies, but it seems that any policy that does not impose language use by decree will likely fall short. Some of the most successful revitalization schemes have replaced one oppressive policy with another, creating winners and losers while trampling on the rights of the speakers of certain languages. If we value the preservation of languages for reasons of cultural diversity such an approach seems counterintuitive at best. Governments should instead turn to policies that support local languages without the excesses of linguistic fanaticism. One promising approach is to make government services and education in these languages available, but not compulsory. Such a model underscores the importance of protecting regional and historical languages, but does so without coercion of any kind. In the face of the inexorable forces of globalization, this strategy faces an uphill battle, but it is one worth fighting.

Pieter Brower ‘18 is a Public Policy and Hispanic Studies concentrator and a Managing Editor at BPR. Infographic by Aansh Shah

The World

Brown Political Review

A n E n e my o f my E n e my ing relationsh loom the ip be b e twe Th

According to an old Kurdish proverb, “the Kurds have no friends but the mountains.” The Iraqi-Kurdish independence referendum on September 25, 2017, exercised in the face of global opposition, seemed to confirm this declaration. A sea of demonstrators filled stadiums, streets, and public squares after over 90 percent of voters chose independence, despite widespread opposition from countries ranging from Iran to the United States. Among the multitude of Kurdish flags, however, was an unexpected sight: the blue and white six-pointed star of the Israeli flag. To date, Israel remains the

en I srae l an d the Kurds

only nation to publicly support the Kurdish referendum, and the Kurdish independence movement has widely been dubbed “a second Israel” by adversaries. While a Kurdish state still remains unlikely, Israeli support for the independence referendum raises an important point: The Kurds may have finally found the friend they have been missing. The relationship between the Jews and the Kurds dates back to as early as the eighth century BCE, when Jews were held captive by the Babylonians in the area corresponding to present-day Kurdistan. In more modern times, relations between the 35

World

Brown Political Review

Kurds and Israelis began shortly after Israel’s creation. Many Kurds left Iraq to partake in the project of a Jewish homeland, and the persecution of the Jews in the early 1950s forced the remaining Kurdish Jews out of Iraq. Guided by a small group of Kurdish fighters, they fled over the mountains to Israel’s former ally, Iran, where many were then airlifted to Israel. One of these Kurdish fighters, Masoud Barzani, was president of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) when Iraqi Kurdistan called for the referendum. Just over a decade later, during the first Kurdish-Iraqi war, Israel coordinated a covert operation to free Barzani, who was overwhelmed by Iraqi forces. Since the 1960s, Israel has provided Iraqi Kurdistan with intelligence, military support, and humanitarian aid. The robust historical relationship between Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan has led many to criticize current Israeli support of the independence referendum as an effort to create “a second Israel.” The moniker is widely seen as a part of a larger effort among Israelis and Kurds to conflate Kurdish national aspirations with regional animus toward Israel. Israel nevertheless sees great economic and strategic potential in an independent Kurdish state, and a secure relationship between the two nations would likely prove beneficial to both parties. In 2015, the Financial Times reported that over three-quarters of

oil consumed by Israel—an extremely oil-poor state—comes from the Iraqi Kurdistan region. With few allies in the region, Israel has relied upon less geographically convenient nations for its oil supply. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan would have the potential to ease this geographical oil isolation. Israel also sees an independent Kurdish state as a new market for its booming agriculture and technology sector. In 2016, a member of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, formed a caucus to explore potential exchanges in these areas. The opening of new markets and the prospect of oil security are strong incentives for a formal alliance between an independent Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel. This economic potential, however, is dwarfed by the strategic advantage that an independent Iraqi Kurdistan would grant Israel. Due to the intertwined history of the Kurds and the Jews, an independent Iraqi Kurdistan could be a reliable long-term ally of Israel—a relationship sorely needed for a country with a history of regional isolation. Bordering Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and most importantly Iran, Iraqi Kurdistan lies in a key geographical location. Just 416 miles west of Tehran, Kurdistan’s capital of Erbil was used as an operation center by Israeli intelligence during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and Israel has since used the region to spy on Iranian nuclear development. The

Brown Political Review

Israel nevertheless sees great economic and strategic potential in an independent Kurdish state, and a secure relationship between the two nations would likely prove beneficial to both parties.

location of Iraqi Kurdistan also has the potential to act as a buffer against extremist groups and terrorist organizations. And in the fight against ISIL, Iraqi Kurdistan has played a more active role than just a buffer: Its military forces, Peshmerga, have been some of the most effective in the region. If, however, Israel fails to support the Kurds, it can’t depend on the government to remain cordial. Iran’s influence on Kurdistan’s minority party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), is growing, and so is the power of the party itself. The PUK, which has never been the majority coalition in the history of the KRG, is poised to capitalize on the decision to call the independence referendum. If Israel does not step in to support the KRG, it risks allowing the Iranians to become greater players in the region, but if it does, an independent Iraqi Kurdistan could be a stronghold for Israeli intelligence and prove to be a pivotal influence. While relations with Israel are crucial to promoting an independent Kurdish state, it is important to recognize the aversion that other regional states have toward Israel. The budding Israeli-Kurdish relationship stokes regional fear that an Israeli-backed nation could be formed on the border of Iran, Turkey, and Syria. Already, President Barzani has been called an “Israeli puppet” due to his deep historical ties with Israel. The Turkish press and other media have spread false rumors that Israel plans to transport all 200,000 Kurdish Jews in Israel to the KRG following the independence referendum. Western nations, including the United States and Great Britain, have been frustrated by the recent push for Kurdish independence. They see the conflict between Iraqi forces and Peshmerga as a distraction from the fight against terrorist organizations and corrosive to the stability of Iraq. This frustration

World

with the Kurds and the overarching opposition to an independent state call into question whether a Kurdish nation is a viable possibility. Since the September 25th referendum, the loss of Kirkuk, often called “the Kurdish Jerusalem,” has decelerated the movement for independence. Prior to the referendum, the KRG seemed to be in control of Kirkuk, Iraq’s most oil-rich city, and prepared to use it as an important bargaining chip in the fight for a Kurdish state. But it took just hours for these hopes to be dashed, as Iraqi forces stormed the city just weeks after the independence referendum took place. Iraq is now planning to remove Iraqi Kurdistan’s control over border crossings, a major power of the semi-autonomous region. These factors are worrying to the Kurds, who overwhelmingly support independence. Though cooperation with Israel is not ideal considering its polarizing reputation, Israel may be the only option the Kurds have to achieve their goal of an independent Kurdish state. Israel too should continue to seek out this relationship in the face of opposition. A Kurdish state could provide economic partnerships, strategic opportunities, and a secure ally. If the shared histories of Israelis and the Kurds conjure support that runs deeper than politics, the Kurds may finally be able to count more than just the mountains as their friends.

A.J. Braverman ‘21 is an intended Political Science concentrator and a US Staff Writer at BPR. Illustrations by Sel Lee

Private function?

W e c a n d o t h at ! We can accommodate any special event, whether it is for a bridal or baby shower, rehearsal dinner, cocktail party, anniversary, birthday party or any other special event.

no room fee for private functions! Contact us today at 401-331-6200 234 thayer street Providence, ri 02906

Illustrations by Paul Meuser

Inter

views

POLITICS IN THE AGE OF

TRUMP

Sabrina Siddiqui Sabrina Siddiqui is a reporter for The Guardian US, where she covers national politics and the Trump administration. During the 2016 election, Siddiqui covered the Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton campaigns. Previously, Siddiqui was a congressional reporter for The Huffington Post and worked at the White House desk at Bloomberg News. Siddiqui is a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, and frequently appears as a political analyst on MSNBC and CNN.

How does the Trump administration treat the press differently than prior administrations did? All administrations are difficult to cover in terms of access. They’re very guarded, and there’s not a great deal of transparency. However, this administration is unlike any other because it has a very adversarial view of the press and the First Amendment. They’ve gone on the record no shortage of times declaring war on the media, and the president called the media the “enemy of the state.” Ultimately, the White House will still have the daily briefings and the media can still ask questions, and sometimes the administration will respond to your emails if you’re looking for a statement. But there’s a complete lack of the professional rapport that you had with other administrations—a lack of respect. There is also an effort to discredit the media. In any administration, there is an effort to spin the news in the administration’s favor, and smart administrations have done this very well. But it’s different to portray the media as an enemy that cannot be trusted in order to craft this universe where you and your supporters can operate. It’s not dissimilar to what you see under a lot of dictatorships or authoritarian states. How can reporters remain unbiased towards the administration after the president’s public displays of an42

imosity, like calling the press the “enemy of the American people”? I think that there is an important role that the media has to play with respect to maintaining credibility. There’s a lot of disdain towards the attacks that are made against the media, as there should be. However, I think sometimes this reaction is disproportionate to the response when disenfranchised, underrepresented groups are attacked in similar, if not far worse, ways. I wonder if we can be as outraged when there is an attack on immigrants, women, or on African Americans after Charlottesville, as we are when there’s an attack on us. Otherwise, it seems like we’re only getting really worked up when it’s personal. Do you think that the media benefits from the chaotic atmosphere within the White House? I think the quote which best summed that up was made by an executive at CBS during the campaign: “Donald Trump is bad for America but good for ratings.” Now that Trump is president, we’re operating with this baseline that anything he says or does is news. Wall-to-wall coverage of Trump can overshadow what the administration is doing behind the scenes. In some ways, this reporting is important and revealing—it tells you how dysfunction-

al things are, and it tells you about the President’s temperament and personality. But this type of news is the easier target, and that means there is less coverage driven by policy nuances. How do you remain unbiased and impartial given the president’s and his administration’s attacks on minority groups? For myself, as a Muslim American and someone who was born to immigrant parents, this was a very difficult election to cover. But if you read my stories, I’m not going to cover the travel ban as anything but a news reporter. I think one thing journalists can do is contextualize where it is appropriate. If I’m going on TV to analyze a policy, I can say for the public’s information how it would affect families like mine. I think people really need to know who is being affected by someone’s rhetoric or policy changes. People can’t be walking on eggshells because these topics make us uncomfortable. It’s our job to be open, honest, and frank with the public.

Interviewed by Maya Fitzpatrick

Siegfried Hecker Siegfried Hecker is an American nuclear scientist whose research interests include plutonium science, nuclear weapons policy, and nuclear security. Hecker served as the Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1986 to 1997 and now serves as co-director of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. Mr. Hecker has visited North Korea seven times and has toured the country’s nuclear facilities.

How has North Korea’s nuclear program developed over time? The nuclear program in North Korea has been going on for 50 years. The program really took off in the direction of producing a nuclear bomb in late 2002. They started building the bomb in 2003, and then in 2006, they conducted the first nuclear test. Since then, they have made substantial progress in being able to design and manufacture a nuclear device that is more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The next issue is whether the North Koreans have missiles that can deliver these bombs. What we do know is that they most likely have a missile that could reach the United States. They probably still need another nuclear test and some more missile tests to convince themselves they can actually put a nuclear warhead on a missile that can reach the United States. But they’re working on it, and I have little doubt that they’ll get there eventually. BPR: How did previous administrations work with the North Korean government to avoid nuclear conflict? By the time President Clinton came into office, it was clear that there was a serious problem with the North Koreans preparing to build a bomb. In 1994, Clinton struck a deal with Kim Jong-il called the Agreed Framework. When Clinton came into office, his objective must have been to not let North Korea build a bomb, and when he left office in January 2001, they didn’t have a bomb, as best as I know. However, while the Agreed Framework did require North Korea to halt the operations of their nuclear plutonium complex, North Korea was covertly exploring other ways to develop the bomb.

This is what the Bush administration found out. Ultimately, the Bush administration failed because it killed the Agreed Framework and was not prepared for the consequences. By the end of the Bush administration, North Korea had maybe a handful of primitive bombs. Obama’s approach was very different—first he tried to negotiate, and then he implemented economic sanctions. However, Obama failed. By the end of the Obama administration, North Korea had a nuclear arsenal. How would you rate the Trump administration’s approach to handling the conflict in North Korea? When entering office, the most important job President Trump faced was to not let North Korea use their nuclear arsenal. So, the first order of business should have been to talk to the North Koreans and to ensure that they had an understanding that nuclear weapons could not be used. Instead, the focus of the Trump administration appears to be to not let the North Koreans develop ICBM capabilities to reach the United States. My view, however, is that the fact that North Korea’s missiles could reach South Korea and Japan is bad enough. Both because it puts Seoul and Tokyo at risk and since there’s at least 150,000 US citizens in South Korea [and] 54,000 US soldiers in Japan—so there are a lot of Americans lives are at risk. However, President Trump seems to be really adamant to not let North Korea achieve an ICBM. And the more adamant President Trump becomes, the more determined North Korea is to get there. So, we’ve had a race. And along with that race, there has been a race in the war of words. How imminent of a threat do you think that a nuclear war with North Korea really is?

We don’t have a preemptive military option. They’ve gone too far. In fact, a report by the Congressional Resource Service said that in the outbreak of a war, the North Koreans could kill as many of 300,000 in Seoul with conventional weapons only. So, attacking North Korea for any reason is going to inflict unacceptable damage on our allies. Then, if they use nuclear weapons, the unacceptable becomes totally unacceptable. A further problem with a preemptive military strike is that we don’t know where all the weapons are. The US and South Korea have to be prepared to reply—to defend themselves. My recommendation has been that the Trump administration send envoys to North Korea to make sure that miscalculations or misunderstandings don’t lead to war or a nuclear exchange. The most imminent threat is not the North Koreans unexpectedly launching a nuclear tip missile at South Korea, Japan, or the United States. I think that the chances of that are very small, and that’s not what keeps me up at night. Instead, the most imminent threat is this war of words— that we back North Korea into a corner, where unexpectedly, because of a misunderstanding or a miscalculation, we stumble into a confrontation, and that confrontation leads to a nuclear exchange. It’s the United States that has to take the lead in reaching an understanding. Our president is sufficiently unpredictable. He may accelerate his aggressive rhetoric or go for the art of the deal. It’s not clear at this point. But it is a pretty nervous situation.

Interviewed by Maya Fitzpatrick 43

Sarahjane Blum Sarahjane Blum is the President of Property of the People, a non-profit that initiated Operation 45, a project dedicated to ensuring transparency and accountability in the Trump administration. This project uses the Freedom of Information Act and other research modes to expose governmental overreach and mismanagement. Blum holds an MA in American history from Georgetown University.

How does Operation 45 use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to ensure government transparency? The Freedom of Information Act says that the documents of [the] government are the property of the people, and all anybody should have to do to access them is ask. But in practice, the FOIA is not very user-friendly. Government by and large doesn’t want to be accountable to citizens, so they use every trick they can to not give records. However, FOIA is still one of the most radically democratic parts of the whole United States government. It can be used, sometimes easily and sometimes with great difficulty, to get the records of government into the hands of public citizens, where we can decide if we like what is being done in our name. How does Operation 45 choose what information it investigates? What we do is say, “here are the questions of public interest, so let’s take a holistic view of these ques44

tions.” To take an example, we were very interested in the question of how Trump’s business holdings present conflicts of interest. We conducted an investigation into the ways in which charge card receipts could show payments to Trumpowned enterprises. We had no idea what this was going to uncover, but we ended up uncovering the first firm example of a violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause [which prohibits the president from receiving benefits from the government other than his compensation]. Once you get access to records, you analyze the value of the material, and then pass along the documents to journalists. How long does this three-step process take? Sometimes, you get 20 pages of documents and you can read that in a day and fairly quickly realize what you are going to do. Other times you get 10,000 pages of names, or things that need a key to decode. Sometimes you may not see something on your first pass that

is important, but after you get 10 other requests [for the same information], you realize you missed something. The information we are getting now might not immediately seem newsworthy, but nine months from now could easily become so. Has the threat of fake news affected your evidence-based line of work? One thing that is really important about using FOIA as a tool is that while you can quibble about anyone’s interpretations, you cannot quibble with the documents. You can’t say this receipt doesn’t exist. So, we consider the use of FOIA to be a pretty good antidote to fake news. It is a good way to remind people how to go back to the source.

Interviewed by Jack Makari

Faiz Shakir Faiz Shakir is the National Political Director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Prior to joining the ACLU, Shakir was a senior advisor to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. He has also worked at the Center for American Progress, a leading liberal think tank, and as the editor-in-chief of Thinkprogress. org, a political news site.

How has the role of the ACLU changed during the Trump administration? There has been an unprecedented assault on civil rights and civil liberties across the board in a way that feels rather breathless here at the ACLU. It’s like whiplash: You are constantly fighting on so many different fronts.The challenge is to stay grounded in the key priorities and key fights, and not get distracted with charades that the president might be playing with his Twitter account and to focus on the areas where real harm is being felt by people as a result of the policies that [Trump] is pursuing. The ACLU received a huge surge in donations after Trump’s election. Has this support diminished as Trump’s term has progressed? We saw a surge unlike anything that a lot of institutions had ever seen before. Over the course of a weekend, we got millions of dollars of donations, and over the first few months of the Trump administration, we got a quadrupling of our membership. All of that support strengthened this institution collectively, and it gave us resources to do things that we have never done before. It also gave us the opportunity to grow a grassroots mobilization program. After 9/11, the ACLU was fighting some really critical fights against the Bush administration, but it didn’t have the same level of public support as it does now. BPR: The ACLU is a nonpartisan orga-

nization, but as an organization it has explicitly stated its resistance to the Trump administration. Are those two things at odds? We are very partisan in our defense of the Constitution. It’s not about a person; it’s about a policy. We were not geared to oppose Trump as an individual; we were geared to oppose all unconstitutional policies. We are also working with as many Republicans as we can to oppose the excesses of Trump. When you are so strident in your defense of the Constitution, it can look like the thing that is guiding you is opposition to Trump, but really it’s a fervent opposition to his policies. How successful has the resistance been to the Trump administration’s overreaches? Certainly, the story of the last few months shows that the resistance to Trump’s assault on civil liberties is working. It has had so much more success than people anticipated, partly because Trump has been an incompetent president. But in addition to that, you look at things like the resistance all across the country to the [Affordable Care Act] repeal, or when Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, or when people rushed into the airports on Muslim Ban weekend. There are so many instances where the rising tide of resistance, where people utilize their

right to protest, has had meaningful consequences in averting some of the worst excesses of Trump. The ACLU has always taken a very broad pro-free speech stance, even defending the white nationalists after the Charlottesville incident this summer. How does the ACLU balance the right to free speech with the consequences of harmful speech? The limitations and restrictions on speech are most often going to originate against the groups that are least popular. Once you allow that to happen, the downward slide of speech begins. If you start with white nationalists, the next group is Black Lives Matter, then Greenpeace, then prochoice advocates. You need a broad-based [equality] principle that protects the speech of all. At the same time, we don’t want to get in the business of protecting people who come bearing arms preparing to cause a riot and do physical harm to others. The way to fight speech is more speech. We can defend white nationalists, but we can also mobilize our members and staff to go rally in opposition to white nationalists. Going forward, we are going to see a lot more of that from the ACLU. We might defend people that we disagree with, but also use our increased advocacy strength to mobilize masses in opposition to the speech whose values we abhor.

Interviewed by Katrina Northrop 45

David Corn David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, a progressive political magazine. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for The Nation. He is also the author of numerous books, including The Lies of George W. Bush. Corn graduated from Brown University in 1982.

Is the best tactic for reporting on the Trump administration to cover everything or to focus on the bigger issues?

unprecedented dishonesty. Is that situation analogous to what Trump is doing now?

has gone beyond the general boundaries of political spin and the norms of political truth telling.

Chaos is Trump’s modus operandi. He loves having the ability to discombobulate and to throw out new shiny objects that the media has to chase after. He’s done this like no other politician or president has ever done. Barack Obama’s birth certificate was not a real issue, but he made it one by insisting that the first African American president was not born here. It was an outright racist move. He did it to get attention, and he got attention. The unfortunate thing for reporters and journalists is that anything a president does sort of counts. If he goes on and on about the size of his inaugural crowd, as trivial an issue as it is, the fact that it’s the president who is doing it makes it hard to ignore. It’s like covering a circus, except a circus is a diversion from normal life. With Trump, it’s like covering a circus that does matter. The only advice that I have is that we need reporters covering the horrendous story of his interactions with a war widow and covering the story of what he’s doing with North Korea. The real challenge is for the citizenry absorbing all of this to sort out what’s important and what’s not.

When it came to a lot of key policy issues, Bush and his aides kept putting forth false assertions and predicates, whether it was about privatizing social security or lowering taxes on the rich. It was an expansion of the normal use of spin. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, they made the case for war on the basis of multiple assertions that were not true. But saying that the Bush administration was lying was something a lot of the media were not ready to do. They criticized me and others who would make this case, and called us hyperpartisan.

Do you ever have to sacrifice being honest with your readers to avoid being called partisan?

You were a harsh critic of President George W. Bush because of his

One role of the media should be to point out when important people say important things that are false. Trump uses an excess of false statements on matters large and small. Sometimes it’s about his past positions, like saying he opposed the Iraq war, or that climate change is a hoax. Other matters are small, like the size of his inaugural crowd and being on the cover of Time Magazine more than anybody else. His excessive reliance on statements that he knows or has reason to know are false puts the media in a tough position. They can’t just report on lie after lie without confronting the fact that he’s set a Guinness record for lying in office. He

That’s the trap that Trump and his defenders want to try to set for the media. If you say he’s a liar, then you’re partisan. It doesn’t matter whether you prove these statements to be true. He says things that are contradictory, offensive, and untrue. And when you have to report on these sorts of stories on almost a daily basis, it looks as if you’re being unfair to him when really what you’re doing is accurately covering him. He can mount this un-American demagogic crusade against the media claiming anything he doesn’t like is fake news. This is the way an authoritarian deals with a free press. It’s very ugly and very antithetical to the norms of our society. He’s debasing the national discourse, and this is all contributing to an increase in political divisiveness and tribalism that was already a problem.

Interviewed by Alexis Viera

Ben Domenech Ben Domenech is the founder and publisher of The Federalist, a self-described “small ‘c’ conservative” website that focuses on culture. Domenech also hosts The Federalist Radio Hour and writes the daily newsletter The Transom. Before founding The Federalist, Domenech was the youngest political appointee in the George W. Bush administration, serving as a speechwriter for Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

How would you compare the Federalist to Breitbart? Do they invoke small ‘c’ conservatism the way The Federalist does? Breitbart’s namesake, Andrew Breitbart, cared a lot more about Hollywood and culture than he did about immigration policy or trade policy. He was much more about the idea that politics was downstream from culture. There’s an alternate history, where if Andrew never died, Breitbart means something else. But today we don’t really view them as being in our lane. I view our role as being one that puts culture first. Arguments about relationships between men and women, the dating scene—they’ve become political in a very obvious way. I view the cultural space as the most interesting space. How, if at all, have your responsibilities as a media organization changed since Trump was elected? Trump ramps everything up. One of the things that Trump’s presidency does is pour oxygen on the fire that was already there. As a media organization it’s a challenge because you try to critique Trump based on substance,

and you don’t want a knee-jerk reaction against everything he does. Over and over again he’ll go out and say something on an issue, and everyone will criticize him. The problem is that the people who support him feel like they are constantly being called an idiot, a white supremacist, a bigot, or a misogynist. Why have his people stuck with him through all of these polls? Because they like what he’s doing, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that you can draw a straight line between them and the worst aspects of Trump’s character. I think it’s more of a statement of what they think is a priority for this country. So much of his appeal is built on nostalgia for a time in which things were skewed in favor of working- and middle-class white people. I think that’s not good, but it’s honest. I’d rather have our political dialogue be more honest about where people are and what their priorities are. Do small ‘c’ conservatives have a responsibility to respond to white nationalism and the segments of it elevated in the Trump administration?

right now, and John Kelly is not a white supremacist, James Mattis is not a white supremacist, Jared and Ivanka, whatever you think of them, have not been leaders in the spread of white supremacy. And if you look at the people who are around him, he basically doesn’t even have any Republicans left. These are all people who are apolitical or casually center-right in a New York liberal way. It would be the same as me saying, “Nobody on the left believes in the First Amendment anymore because people on college campuses say that it’s justified shouting down somebody they disagreed with.” In some instances you need to respond to white nationalism and say this is why this is wrong. It is important to be aware of this strain of [white nationalist] thought, and not do anything to help it along. But also don’t give them more oxygen than they deserve, and don’t pretend that they amount to a larger number of people than they actually do.

I look at who is around the President