Editoe‘ Note Record numbers of Americans turned out in 2020 to cast their vote in what was deemed by many to be a referendum on the future of democracy. With over 158 million ballots cast, the message was clear: People recognize that they have a say in their own future, and they will come together to show it. Yet voting is a right that not all individuals—in the United States or abroad—are guaranteed to, and there are a multitude of other ways in which people are fighting for a better future. Youth-led environmental movements have relayed the urgency of the climate crisis; global Black Lives Matter protests have brought police and prison abolition to the forefront of conversations on criminal justice; and technology and medicine are advancing at a rapid pace to meet everyday and anticipated needs. Quite simply, the actions we take in the present day are mapping our future. This issue’s contributors demonstrate this concept from several different perspectives. Ben Youngwood argues that pre-election polls of Latino individuals will only improve in accuracy if the polling industry shifts its surveying and hiring practices to address the unique needs and diversity of Latino voters. Alex Fasseas and Haley Joyce interview Michael Steele, who provides insights on the changing landscape of the Republican Party and his own relationship to it. Lastly, Sacha Sloan explores the tumult of post-election Peru, theorizing that the results of the conflict between Pedro Castillo and Keiko Fujimori will have long-lasting consequences on Peru’s political landscape. We are incredibly grateful to all of our BPR staff members who made this issue possible; we cannot thank you enough for your contributions this summer and always, and we know that the future of this organization is bright.
- Hannah and Rachel
Table of Contents Poll it Together Cover by Nina Yuchi
by Ben Youngwood
The Future of the Republican Party by Alex Fasseas and Haley Joyce
Authoritariansim Revisited
by Sacha Sloan
Michael Steele made history as the first African American Lieutenant Governor of Maryland in 2003 and Chairperson of the Republican National Committee in 2009. In addition to his role as a Watson Senior Fellow at Brown University, Mr. Steele makes regular appearances on MSNBC as a political analyst. Currently, Mr. Steele is considering running for governor of Maryland in the upcoming primary.
AF & HJ: In an interview with the Baltimore Sun, you described your difficult relationship with the Republican Party in the form of an extended metaphor: “If you come to my house and, in the course of being there, you start tearing up my carpet and writing on my walls and breaking my fine china, do I throw you out or do I leave?” At what point do you leave your house? Is there a clear threshold for you?
The Future of the Republican Party
MS: These questions are at the forefront of a lot of Republicans’ minds right now. We’re at that reckoning moment where we have to assess whether or not the infestation of Trumpism has become too deep and terminal. I’ve said that I’ll stay in the fight for as long as I can—as long as there’s value in the fight. And I know that there are a lot of Republicans who don’t want to leave for a whole host of reasons, so you’ve got to help them and be respectful and mindful of why they stay. The next question is, what are our options? The Democrats have not offered Republicans like me a reliable alternative because politically, they’re beyond dysfunctional, and on policy, they’re not very welcoming. And our political structure doesn’t allow for other voices to land someplace else. After all, we only have two parties in this country.
eCoriviCoexeaiglviearariraviexstri rsvictst ea riex eaea ea by Alex Fasseas ‘23 and Haley Joyce ‘23 Alex Fasseas & Haley Joyce: The Republican Party continues to embrace a kind of Trumpist rhetoric on issues of identity and race. Is this a sustainable electoral strategy for the Republican Party, especially in a country that is becoming increasingly diverse?
Michael Steele: No, it’s not. The Republican Party is placing its future political bet on white voters. Period. You can’t sugarcoat it. The party has failed to acknowledge that the country is going to look more like me in less than 20 years. Despite what people may think, the demographics are changing, and so are the attitudes of young white voters as they begin to see through a lens very different from their parents’—certainly different from their grandparents’. The party’s strategy cannot stand up against this new reality of demographic change and social awareness. There is a fear of recognizing that in my party right now. So they hold on to that 1950s view of America, a view that never really existed: the white picket fences, daddy going to work, mommy staying at home, a Chevy in the front yard, the flag flying on the front porch. It’s the “Make America Great Again” narrative. And you could take out “great” and put in “white” and it would still mean the exact same thing. How do we know that? Well, we’ve embraced the Proud Boys. We’ve embraced Nazism. We’ve embraced white nationalism. We have not pushed back against it as we once did. So the question for the party becomes: How do you push back? How do you reconcile yourself with a country that looks less and less like you?
AF & HJ: Given that the two-party system is likely here to stay, is there anything the Democratic Party can do to welcome alienated Republicans into its ranks? This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
MS: That’s a good question. I’ve had close relationships with many Democratic chairs, and I’ve said to all of them, “Who is your Reagan?” Reagan pulled Democrats to the Republican party and kept them there for 10-plus years. How did he do it? What was his messaging? This idea of a Reagan Democrat has some real value to it. Currently, who is that political figure who recognizes that there are Republicans who probably would align themselves with the Democratic party? I mean, if a pro-life Republican like myself became a Democrat, I wouldn’t expect the Democratic party to become pro-life. But damn, could they at least acknowledge that they already have some pro-life Democrats? They make it seem like no such creature exists in politics. I know a lot of pro-life Democrats, but even they feel stunted in their ability to express that openly because they get shouted down and labeled as anti-women, and that’s just not the case. So the reality, politically, is what can the Democratic Party do to make it attractive for a Republican to join forces with them?
“The election will be flipped, dear friends,” Peruvian presidential candidate Keiko Fujimori cried to her supporters, referring to an election she lost. How did Peru get here? On June 6, 2021, Peruvians voted in the most polarized election in decades. An earlier general election had yielded two historically unpopular runoff candidates: Pedro Castillo, a political newcomer, teachers’ union leader, and avowed socialist, and Keiko Fujimori, the far-right, establishment-backed daughter of former Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori. The candidates represent disparate sides of Peru’s deeply unequal society. Throughout the 21st century, Peru’s corporatist government has built its economic success on the exploitation of impoverished rural Peruvians, resulting in widespread political disillusionment and the worst per capita Covid-19 death toll in the world as of June 2021.
by Sacha Sloan ‘23.5, an English concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR
R r o ht u A R r a t ms i n a
“In their desperate bid to subvert democracy, Ms. Fujimori and the far-right reached into the depths of Peru’s authoritarian past to stave off the future.”
ReRsited ThePruRanFr-Right's WarAgineDemocccy
So, on June 6, the primarily poor and Indigenous residents of the interior highlands overwhelmingly voted for Castillo, while the whiter business, media, and political elite of the coastal cities coalesced behind Ms. Fujimori. According to government tallies and international observer consensus, Castillo beat Ms. Fujimori by about 40,000 votes. But for months, Ms. Fujimori and her allies systematically impugned the validity of these results. Her campaign leveled baseless accusations of voter fraud and sued to nullify roughly 200,000 ballots in predominantly Indigenous precincts. In their desperate bid to subvert democracy, Ms. Fujimori and the far-right reached into the depths of Peru’s authoritarian past to stave off the future. Echoes of her father’s authoritarianism endured within Ms. Fujimori’s attempts to overturn the election, from an allyship with repressive military officials to backdoor bribery operations. Under the guise of combating the Shining Path terrorist group, Mr. Fujimori dissolved Peru’s Congress and supported military and intelligence agencies as they committed human rights abuses during his tenure. In 2021, almost 100 ex-military officers signed a letter exhorting the Armed Forces to not recognize Castillo if his presidential victory was formally certified. And, in a startling turn of events, Mr. Fujimori’s infamous intelligence chief Vladimir Montesinos—who is currently serving a 20-year prison term—was caught on tape advising a retired commander to bribe election judges for Ms. Fujimori.
“Beneath the rhetoric of fraud and economic fears lies the simple fact that some Peruvians see their votes as superior to others.” The irony was lost on no one: Back in 2000, the release of videos showing Montesinos extorting politicians led to the fall of Mr. Fujimori in the first place. The specter of left-wing violence remains a potent cudgel for autocrats in 2021. Ms. Fujimori and the media behemoth El Comercio—which controls over 80 percent of Peru’s newspapers—have sought to paint Castillo as a violent, Shining Path-connected communist who would destroy the economy. Unknown sources have funded anti-Castillo propaganda in Lima, from ominous billboards to fear-mongering WhatsApp messages. After a brutal massacre on May 23rd, the Peruvian military immediately blamed the Shining Path, the media followed suit, and Ms. Fujimori went so far as to publicly link Castillo to the killings. But local authorities have yet to determine who is responsible. Ms. Fujimori’s strongest weapon, though, may be the interlinked social ills that have plagued Peru for centuries: classism and anti-Indigenous racism. Her father oversaw the forced sterilization of nearly 300,000 Indigenous Peruvians, and although he is facing charges for these crimes, Ms. Fujimori promised to pardon him if elected. It is no coincidence that her
fraud allegations target rural, Indigenous areas—they tap into long-standing racist undercurrents among the European-descended upper classes. These prejudices have come to the fore as elites face the prospect of losing power. Widespread internet memes portrayed Castillo as a donkey; preeminent Peruvian intellectual Mario Vargas Llosa said the “catastrophe” of Castillo “is evident to the immense majority of Peruvians, especially Peruvians from cities and Peruvians who are better informed.” At Ms. Fujimori’s rallies, some attendees display emblems of the Spanish Empire and raise their arms in Nazi salutes. Beneath the rhetoric of fraud and economic fears lies the simple fact that some Peruvians see their votes as superior to others. More broadly, Castillo’s ascendancy represents a long-simmering backlash to a globalized neoliberalism that ignores the impoverished. The current Peruvian Constitution, drafted in 1993 by Mr. Fujimori with support from the US government, transformed Peru into a haven for business at the expense of the marginalized. Castillo’s election was a populist, protectionist uprising against this modern-day colonialism. He seeks to renegotiate major industry contracts to ensure that more profits flow to average Peruvians, instead of only going to foreign investors and urban business elites. Peru’s embattled election could foreshadow a revitalized Pink Tide—a leftward turn—in Latin America, or it could portend a further slide into region-wide autocracy. Castillo, faced with steep opposition in a fragmented Congress, likely won’t be able to accomplish his bolder proposals, such as redrafting the Constitution. But his election nevertheless represents a stark, permanent shift in the Peruvian political landscape—and with it, the dawn of a more democratic, equitable future that the conservative old guard cannot forestall.