The Hill
Chapel Hill Political Review November 2010
http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill
Volume X, Issue II
Youth in Politics
Did You Vote? Youth turnout for the midterm elections
“Legalize marinara” The Rally to Restore Sanity in Washington D.C.
Obama’s Report Card Civil rights since 2008
The Hill Staff
From the Editor
EDITORS Caroline Guerra Clayton Thomas
To our readers: After proving to be a formidable force in the 2008 presidential election, young people in the United States are now trying to figure out their relationship with politics. It’s complicated. Interest in public service and getting involved in politics varies (pg. 12). Young people are also not the most consistent voters (14). One common thread, with few exceptions in the young adult crowd, is a love for Jon Stewart (pg. 15), even if the Democrats have misinterpreted his role in the political discourse (pg. 22).
In other news, we discuss Google’s new venture into designing cars (pg. 18). Argentina loses a powerful “First Man” (pg. 8), and tension grows between China and Japan (pg. 6). Thank you so much for picking up a copy of The Hill. We hope you enjoy this issue and consider contributing to one of our issues next semester. Caroline Guerra is a senior majoring in political science and international studies. Tatiana Brezina is a senior majoring in international studies and political science.
Send us your comments We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or e-mail - no more than 250 words, please. Include your name, year and major.
208 Frank Porter Graham Student Union UNC-CH Campus Box 5210 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210 http://studentorgs.edu/thehill/ thehillpr@gmail.com
The Hill
Chapel Hill Political Review
Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national and international politics. This publication is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high premium is placed on having a publication that is not affiliated with any party or organization, but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide the university community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events and trends. This means that, on the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues.
MANAGING EDITORS Tatiana Brezina Siddarth Nagaraj Yash Shah WRITERS Carey Averbook Lucy Emerson Amanda Claire Grayson Caroline Guerra Sam Hobbs Alex Jones Krishna Kollu Radhika Kshatriya Aaron Lutkowitz Evan Noll Ismaail Qaiyim Christian Rodriquez John Rudisill Stephanie Shenigo Kevin Uhrmacher Sarah Wentz WEB EDITOR Sarah Wentz DESIGN Nicole Fries Evan Noll Natasha Smith HEAD OF ART Megan Shank ART JR Fruto Connor Sullivan CIRCULATION Amanda Claire Grayson Wilson Sayre TREASURER Kendall Law FACULTY ADVISER Ferrel Guillory
2 The Hill
Contents November 2010
Volume X, Issue II
Features 16 19
Free Speech and National Security Civil rights under the Obama administration Best from the Blog Google causes a border dispute
Cover 12 15
Public Service Today Why youth get involved, and why they don’t Growing Up with the “Daily Show” Jon Stewart’s wide appeal
The Last Word Democrats need to look within, not to the media
In Every Issue v Notes from The Hill
v Point/Counterpoint
November 2010 3
Notes from The Hill
Notes from
The Hill Review
“The Death of Conservatism”
Now would seem an odd time to review a book called The Death of Conservatism. Movement Conservatives have stampeded back into Congress, and the wide haunches of the Republican elephant once again smother Capitol Hill. As far back as August, the Wall Street Journal gloated that Sam Tanenhaus’s thesis was “greatly exaggerated.” Tanenhaus might reply that the content of the oped—which regurgitated the out-ofdate dogma of “traditional values” and “economic freedom”—confirms his premise that conservatives have lost the ability to generate policies preserving society’s central commitments amid rapid change. The Death of Conservatism asserts that post-war conservatism consists of an ongoing dialogue between “true conservatives,” who see society as a repository of ageold knowledge and seek to protect it from radicals who would upend tradition; and “revanchists,” reactionaries who despise modernity
4 The Hill
and want to yank America back to a pre-New Deal golden age. In the former camp, Tanenhaus counts Dwight Eisenhower and a series of intellectuals, including literary critic Whittaker Chambers. His revanchists are people like Goldwater, Gingrich, and supply-side economists. Over time, the revanchists beat the moderates in the political arena and committed the right to an increasingly strident right-wing ideology. In the face of snarling ideologues, moderates either cowered in forgotten corners of think-tanks or defected to the Left. The Bush administration was the fiery finale of the Movement’s 50-year show, with an aggressive and slipshod “War on Terror,” a similarly punitive war on eggheads, enormous highbracket tax cuts, and other dazzling fireworks displays. Tanenhaus guides the reader through fifty years of thought-Burkean and revanchist. He is particularly good when reanimating the intellectual ferment that evolved into the philosophy we know today. Tanenhaus convincingly argues that the problem with conservatism is not that its ideas are intrinsically wrong, but that its convictions have become hard, brittle and as the financial crisis showed, easy to
shatter. Worse, as he predicts toward the book’s conclusion, Republicans have refused to pick up the pieces of their broken worldview and reconstruct them as a program consistent with today’s challenges. Like many works that explain political movements through their intellectual foundations, The Death of Conservatism seems naïve about the role of power relations in politics. In practice, conservatism is a political alliance between economic elites and aggrieved social traditionalists. Long-term philosophical foundations inform the policies of this coalition in the unique context of each period. As a philosophy, conservatism seeks to prolong the reign of society’s current hierarchy and reinforce traditional sources of social authority. In our current moment, tax cuts for the power elite and a twilight battle to keep the last shards of white privilege in place accomplish both of these goals fairly well. The “Pledge to America” may not address many of the problems identified by objective policy analysts, but it will fortify the commanding heights of society today. In that sense, the course of modern conservatism represents not so much a victory for the revanchists as an adaptation to post-industrial multicultural America Alex Jones is a sophomore majoring in history.
Notes from The Hill Update
Gay Rights Throughout History
1967-England: Parliament decriminalizes homosexuality for men 21 and over. 1975-National gay rights amendment fails. U.S. Civil Service Commission drops ban on gays and lesbians from holding federal public jobs. 1985-France: French National Assembly passes bill protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment and access to services. 1988-Homosexuality legalized in Israel. It is also legalized in Canada for those over 18. 1997-Homosexuality legalized in China. 1997-South Africa: First nation to protect homosexuals from discrimination in its constitution. 2004-United Kingdom: Civil Partnership becomes legal for gay and lesbian couples. 2009-India: Supreme Court overturns ban on homosexuality. Chris Rodriguez is a first-year majoring in political science.
Hill-O-Meter By Alex Jones
1 Rand Paul has pledged to go to Washington to “TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK” to 1963.
2 Senator-elect/recreational rifleman Joe Manchin will be driving down from the West Virginia hills to take his seat in Congress. A warning to environmental legislation: You won’t see him coming until it’s too late.
On election night, John Boehner (insurance industry contributions: $221,990) recounted his hardscrabble life as a working-class kid with a spray-tan.
4
3
Who’s on top of the heap right now? Who has fallen far? We track the up-and-comers and the down-and-outs.
The Oakland Raiders, however, can breathe a sigh of relief. Sharron Angle, who once sponsored a bill prohibiting high school football teams from wearing “Satanic” black jerseys, will remain in Nevada.
November 2010 5
International
Race of the Asian Superpowers The territorial disputes over the Diaoyu or Senkaku islands that resulted in Japan’s detainment of a Chinese fishing boat have escalated into a tense power struggle between the nations. China has retaliated by imposing trade restrictions on products such as rare earth metals that are vital for manufacturing sectors in Japan, and by detaining four Japanese citizens accused of breaking Chinese law. These acts have heightened tensions not only between both countries, but also with the United States. The relations among these countries are fragile and strategic responses are necessary to preserve the balance of international trade and continued cooperation.
problems could arise, which the government would not tolerate. In an
The governments of both China and Japan realize the importance of their economic relationship, likely one of the reasons why Japan eventually agreed to release the detained fishing captain. China has become Japan’s largest trading partner, so damaging such a relationship would incur costs for both countries. However, there is a conflict of interest between nationalist demands in China for the government to take strong action, such boycotting Japanese goods, and maintaining strong trade ties with Japan. The Chinese government has even permitted small scale protests against Japan to take place though it generally restricts political activism. Such a crisis illustrates how citizens are becoming more involved in political affairs. The ultimate response of the Chinese government is significant, because if it rejects its citizens’ nationalist interests, political opposition in dealing with domestic
This is not the first territorial dispute that China has been involved in, as earlier this year China was involved in a case with Vietnam. As an emerging economy, China is asserting its power and taking some risky actions in the international political realm. China recently surpassed Japan as the world’s second largest economy and recent actions illustrate how it wants to maintain this new world economic order. For example, over the past few months China has been criticized by the United States for supposedly implementing high export subsidies on steel and clean energy products. Such subsidies are considered to give Chinese exports an unfair advantage in the global marketplace. Steps to secure territory and a larger portion of the international market demonstrate China’s growth, and though its future may depend on the implementation of such policies, other countries may
6 The Hill
email interview with The Hill, Jeffery Wasserstrom, Chinese history professor at UC Irvine and author of “China in the 21st Century: What Everyone Needs to Know,” stated, “The Chinese government is well aware of how often, in the past, nationalist protests have morphed over time into struggles that also target problems at home, so it would be wrong to assume that anti-Japanese sentiment is something that the regime can simply control and turn on and off like a spigot. Nationalist fervor has often been and could be again a double-edged sword.”
eventually start fighting back. The United States has offered to act as a mediator in talks between Japan and China in recognition of the importance of their relationship. The United States has conflicting interests with both countries. Japan is a longtime U.S. ally, and even though the U.S. has made no claim about the ownership of the islands, they do fall under a U.S. - Japanese defense treaty. Meanwhile, China becomes more important every day to the United States as its economy grows and becomes more integrated with that of the United States. The U.S. response is therefore still vital in securing the balance of power in the region. However, Wasserstrom states that “border disputes are likely to continue to flare up periodically, though generally or perhaps always generating diplomatic and rhetorical volleys rather than military ones.” While both countries have canceled trips to each other’s nations, China and Japan still recognize the significance of their relationship. Any action must be taken with great caution, otherwise negative repercussions will no doubt occur. It will be interesting to see how far China will be able to push other countries before its demands become overwhelming. Lucy Emerson is a junior majoring in economics and political science.
International
A Lesson for Posterity Why deficits matter The European Union voted in October to impose stricter austerity standards on its member states. Some argue that during a recession, it is more important to reboot the economy than to balance the budget, but the situation in Europe shows that there is a breaking point when the deficit just gets too high. For example, Greece was faced with a deficit that was 13.6 percent of its GDP this summer, while France and the U.K. are managing massive deficits closer to 10 percent. Considering that the United States’ deficit is also approaching 10 percent of its GDP, perhaps we should pay particular attention to the developments in Europe. In the U.K., Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, revealed the biggest cuts in state spending since World War II. The government plans to slash 83 billion pounds ($131 billion) from the state budget, eliminate almost 500,000 public sector jobs, reduce the defense budget by 8 percent and introduce a variety of taxes on certain businesses. Interestingly, there has been no widespread unrest. Strong words of criticism from the trade unions and the opposition party have resulted in peaceful protests and unrealized threats of national strikes. France, on the other hand, is enduring paralyzing national strikes in protest of its considerably less severe austerity measures. President
Sarkozy announced a plan to cut spending by only 45 billion euros, or $62 billion. The plan includes provisions to close tax loopholes, withdraw temporary stimulus funds and raise income taxes on the highest earners by 1 percent. However, a stipulation that would raise the age of retirement from 60 to 62 and raise the age for full pension eligibility from 65 to 67 prompted fierce
opposition from the French public. The UK increased the retirement age from 65 to 66, so why has it generated such uproar in France? France has one of the lowest retirement ages and most generous pension systems in Europe, so one explanation is that the French population simply came to rely on this arrangement. However, the system accounts for 65 percent of the French deficit, which, in an interview with The Hill, Economics Professor Patrick Conway explains “will only get
worse as the government is forced to cover a growing aging population that lives longer in retirement with less funds since high unemployment produces fewer people paying into the system.” Clearly, Sarkozy’s proposal addresses an urgent dilemma, but the French public is sensitive to the issue. The circumstances in Greece are even more dismal. Early in the summer, Greece was on the verge of bankruptcy with the highest deficit percentage of its GDP in the EU. It cut 30 billion euros from its budget and initiated measures to minimize tax evasion, increase the sales tax to 23 percent and freeze public salaries. In addition, Greece received a 110 billion euro bailout from the EU and the IMF to prevent Greece from defaulting on its debts. A series of strikes and violent protests in May led to several deaths and small fires in the streets of Athens. The broad scope of the austerity measures and the public’s passionate response underscore the urgency of Europe’s situation. Greece is fighting for its life. The biggest concern in France is that the efforts were not great enough. Osborne’s plan should balance the budget, but its impact on economic recovery remains to be seen. Ideally, nations will take heed and prepare to avoid situations that force them to choose between their financial credibility and their economic prosperity. Sam Hobbs is a sophomore majoring in economics.
November 2010 7
International
Questioning the Future of Argentina In May 2006, former president of Argentina Néstor Kirchner looked out on the profoundly historic Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires— “the plaza of love and of Argentine reconstruction,” as he described it— and announced, “Today this Plaza de Mayo formally says ‘chau’ to the International Monetary Fund.” Mr. Kirchner won the admiration of many Argentines for his progress in building Argentina back up after the economic meltdown in 2001-2002. His defiance of international investors and the neoliberalism of the IMF only gained him more popular support. When you’re a Peronist, popular support is everything. Peronism is a political tradition in Argentina that began with Juan Perón, the most well-known name in Argentine politics besides, possibly, his wife, Evita. Juan Perón was a case study in populism; his policies as president were incongruous, but his charisma was unquestionable. Néstor Kirchner, who died in October, arguably followed in the same vein, developing a strong public personality that worked to rally support and earn him high approval ratings during his years as president. By transitioning to party leadership as his wife took over the presidency five years ago, he was able to increase their joint influence and cash in on his popularity. This tactic may have served him well, but a political current—in this case, “kirchnerismo”— based heavily on one person is left vulnerable when that central figure is gone. Can kirchnerismo continue without Néstor Kirchner? Some argue that Mr. Kirchner’s followers will strongly support his widow, the current president of
8 The Hill
the country, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Mourners in recent days held huge signs proclaiming their loyalty to Mrs. Fernández: “Néstor with Perón…the People with Cristina.” The sheer number of men, women and children that crowded the streets of Buenos Aires after Mr. Kirchner’s death suggests a strong outpouring of sympathy for the widowed president. Will that sympathy translate into votes in next year’s election? Maybe not. In an interview with The Hill, Latin American Politics Professor Kurt Weyland from the University of Texas at Austin said he believes that this surge of support will prove to be a “shortterm phenomenon” that will leave in its wake clear signs of “the vacuum left by [Mr. Kirchner’s] death.” As the director of Argentina’s Center of Political Investigations recently explained to BBC Mundo, Mr. Kirchner’s personalitybased politics assures that “his leadership will not be easily transferable, even to his wife.” One might say especially to his wife. In her years in office, Cristina has developed quite the reputation; she has infuriated ag-
ricultural producers, demonized the media, faced allegations of embezzlement and received scathing criticism from the Pope regarding the country’s “scandalous” poverty. At one point in 2008, her approval ratings had sunk to a mere 23%. Néstor, Cristina’s closest advisor, probably played an important part in keeping her afloat. With the “penguin” (as many Argentines affectionately referred to Néstor) unexpectedly departed, Cristina may not be able to hold onto her position as president through the next election. One of the first issues Cristina is facing since the death of her husband is the economy. Inflation, which is almost surely higher than official reports admit, has had a lot of Argentines worried for a while now. This anxiety has only increased in recent days, especially for those who believe Néstor Kirchner had been making behind-the-scenes economic decisions during his wife’s administration. Roughly two weeks after Mr. Kirchner´s death, one of the top-read articles in Argentina’s La Nación newspaper was tellingly titled: “An economy without a chief.” Mrs. Fernández will clearly need to address these concerns in the coming months in order to safeguard her probable run for reelection. She may even find new policies—economic and otherwise—that will please those who have been dissatisfied for years with the Kirchners’ decisions and could grant her some new supporters on the campaign trail. Caroline Guerra is a senior political science and global studies major.
International
The Currency Wars Superpower vs. Emerging Power Pundits expect the conversation at the upcoming G-20 summit to revolve around one topic: devalued currencies and trade imbalances. In the midst of a fragile recovery, the world’s economic leaders believe these issues to be at the root of their global financial woes. In short, a recent trend has developed in various countries to weaken their currencies in an attempt to cheapen exports and spur growth. As a result, other countries respond with competitive devaluation, which threatens to mature into a trade war, where nations slash their products’ prices and introduce tariffs. The dispute has largely boiled down to a feud between the United States and China. The US identifies China’s currency—which is artificially valued at about 15 to 20 percent below what it is actually worth—as the source of the problem. Other emerging markets have imitated China’s strategy and weakened their own currencies, unsettling a host of nations and investors. Some nations claim that the US has unfairly weakened its currency by virtually eliminating exchange rates and introducing a measure called quantitative easing. Quantitative easing is a monetary policy action used to increase the supply of money and reduce pressure on banks by issuing new treasury bonds. To be sure, depreciation has occurred on a much smaller scale in the US, but the dollar is the global reserve currency and usually has a higher value than other currencies as traders must purchase dollars to complete exchanges on the world market. In the end, this issue requires a balance between national
interest and global financial stability.
a strong, stable middle class.
The US has considerably increased pressure on China recently, in part because their depreciated currency has served as an incentive for American firms to relocate their facilities to China, and also because of the ballooning trade deficit. In response, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has implemented quantitative easing of our own currency to protect against another recession and stimulate the recovery. Most economists agree that this policy has been beneficial, but it has drawn criticism from other nations. Additionally, the US has pushed for a target cap on trade imbalances, asserting that excessive trade deficits pose a threat to stability. Although the tremendous trade deficit with China has shrunk recently, it continues to alarm US officials.
However, China points out that it has allowed its currency to appreciate to its highest level relative to the dollar since 2005 and close to 2% this year alone. While the Chinese recognize a convergence of interests to an extent, they fear that an accelerated rise in their currency would risk social and economic disruption. The foundation of their economic success is cheap exports. Allowing their currency to float unregulated threatens the entire fabric of the Chinese economy.
Timothy Geithner, the US Secretary of the Treasury, argues that as China’s economic influence has grown and assumed more global influence, its responsibility for international monetary policy has also increased. According to Geithner, China must accept this responsibility and allow its currency to appreciate closer to its real value. He maintains it is in the long-term interest of Chinese domestic growth, in addition to global economic stability. Essentially, allowing its currency to float would encourage domestic consumption and limit its reliance on exports, improving China’s GDP and insulating the Chinese economy from falling demand in export markets. Therefore, a rise in its currency is consistent with China’s goal to build
High expectations surround the G20 summit. On the one hand, a breakthrough seems imminent amidst mounting US pressure and a second round of quantitative easing, China has reluctantly acknowledged the need to appreciate its currency. However, the Federal Reserve cannot rebalance the global trade accounts alone, and China’s indications of acceptable appreciation rates do not even approach the drastic requirements of the international situation. In an interview with The Hill, Patrick Conway, a UNC economics professor, suggests that “it will be difficult to establish common interests on a dilemma that has plagued global trade and the monetary system for years.” In spite of the challenges, let us hope for an agreement—the resolution of this currency dispute is central to a robust recovery and to Sino-American relations. Sam Hobbs is a sophomore majoring in history.
November 2010 9
International
Midterms or Manterms? Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell’s advice to her GOP opponent Mike Castle prior to the Delaware Republican primary was, “This is not a bake-off—get your man-pants on.” Though Castle clearly failed to don his “man-pants” quickly enough to beat O’Donnell in the primary, many women flexed their muscles and broke with tradition on November 2. Weakening their traditional support for Democratic candidates from a 56-42 split in the 2008 presidential election, women voters only slightly favored the Democratic Party with a 49-48 split in the midterms. Historically, women have voted more consistently for Democrats than Republicans. However, recent political phenomena may have contributed to changes in women’s electoral preferences. The first is that liberal women who tend to vote for the Democratic Party are disappointed in the Obama administration’s policies on women-specific issues like abortion and pay equality. This has dampened enthusiasm and turnout. The second is the rise of a subset of the female demographic dubbed “the mom factor” of women who identify with Tea Party policies. Women in this demographic reject the more traditional feminist platform points advocated by liberal women voters. Many believe the midterms represent a referendum on President Obama’s policies, and for proponents of this midterm referendum theory, women voters are their poster-child. Many political analysts projected an “enthusiasm gap” among Democratic voters in the midterms.
10 The Hill
As New York Times blogger Nate Silver wrote on October 6, “The enthusiasm gap manifests itself through likely voter models. Over the past month or so, the typical likely voter poll has projected a Republican turnout advantage of about 6 points, relative to the number of registered voters.” Former Clinton pollster Mark Penn emphasized the gap for women in a statement to Politico reporter Ben Smith: “Men seem more energized than women to turn out and vote.” Voter turnout numbers certainly bolster the argument for a women-specific “enthusiasm gap”; only 53% of eligible women voted in the 2010 midterms, as compared to all-time highs of 66% in 2008. But why the lack of enthusiasm among women voters? Many women supporters of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries reluctantly transferred their support to Barack Obama; some seem to be regretting that decision. Also, Obama’s wavering support of family planning and abortion coverage in the health care debates has enraged some, while others criticize his slow action on the Paycheck Fairness Act. Demoralized by the administration’s policies, liberal women may have decided not to vote in the midterms. Meanwhile pollsters have come to different conclusions about female turnout in this election. Democratic pollster Margie Omero reported, “They’re not watching along at home and screaming at the television, so in that sense there’s not as much intensity.” Republican pollster Alex Bratty disagreed with the supposed women’s “enthusiasm
gap,” arguing, “Candidates ignore [Walmart moms] at their peril. They’re the quintessential swing voter. They’re planning to vote, but they haven’t locked in to who they’re going to vote for.” Bratty’s polling touches on a whole new dimension: the “mom” factor. Moms are increasingly taking the political stage, with Sarah Palin a self-proclaimed head of the “mama grizzlies” and Michelle Obama the first real “mom in chief ” since Jackie O. Senator Patty Murphy fulfilled her political ambitions in 1992 as “just a mom in tennis shoes.” As New York Times reporter Judith Warner explains, “‘Mom’ — in both Democratic- and Republicanspeak — is political shorthand now for good common sense and authenticity, an antidote to the effete sensibilities of the so-called Washington elite.” The “mom” voter is less likely to identify with Democratic policies, and unlike the liberal woman, is energized to vote by the Tea Party. On the other hand, Professor Betty Winfield, a Visiting Professor at UNC’s School of Mass Communication and Journalism, weighed in during her November 10 lecture entitled “The Role of Women in Politics”: “This was definitely not the year of the woman. Maybe the Republican woman, but not the year of the woman. The large discrepancy continued between voter gender demographics and gender representation in state and national leadership.” Amanda Claire Grayson is a sophomore majoring in political science and peace, war, & defense.
International
FDI and the US Workforce With a statewide unemployment rate of 11.5 percent, the recent call for 1000 new factory workers for the Greer, South Carolina, BMW plant was met with cheers and relief. However, those who are applying for the new positions are quite different from those in the manufacturing sector before the economic crisis. Many of the current applicants are collegeeducated and previously held senior positions in retail and other industries. The $15 dollar hourly wage will be a significant pay cut, making it appear that the German car company is trying to take advantage of the newly unemployed and highly skilled workforce. However, it is a symptom of a larger problem that began years before anyone had ever heard of a ‘bank bailout’ and ‘Wall Street versus Main Street.’ This new trend of foreign countries coming to the U.S. and hiring overly qualified workers can be explained in a variety of ways. To begin, rising transportation costs make it more profitable for foreign companies to build factories in the United States. For example, 30 percent of the cars produced in the Greer factory stay within the country.
In addition, foreign companies are moving production to the U.S. because of the decreasing value of the dollar. Currently, the U.S. dollar is only valued at .70 for every Euro. The United States is purchasing more goods from foreign nations than it is exporting, which creates a surplus of U.S. money in other countries that can then be used to for investment purposes. However, all of those factors have one root cause: the foreign purchase of United States debt. In an in-person interview with The Hill, Ralph Byrns, Term Professor of Economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, suggests the debt held by the United States government that is owned by foreign countries is why many countries are investing in the United States. Currently, foreign countries own 25% of the United States government debt. As the United States government pays interest on these loans and buys and sells bonds, foreign countries increasingly accumulate American dollars and use them to cheaply invest in the United States. When the returns on these investments are reinvested into the market, interest
rates are driven up, crowding out domestic investors. Of course, foreign investment in the United States is not entirely disadvantageous. It creates jobs and increases United States exports to other countries. However, the increasing foreign investment speaks to the trend of globalization and the difficulty of the lives of United States workers. Since increased foreign investment benefits those in the workforce who are highly skilled, competition in the world of cheap labor has intensified. Those in the workforce in the United States have to compete with the entire world’s labor force now, more so than ever before. Investment borders no longer exist and the United States worker no longer has an inherent advantage. Though educated workers like those hired in Greer can compete, unskilled workers face difficult challenges. Essentially, education and skills save the American worker and allow them to thrive in the increasingly globalized economy. Though many celebrate new foreign factories in the United States, they illustrate how the country is losing its competitive economic edge. The United States workers, like those in the Greer factory, are in factory jobs because that is all they can compete for in the globalized world. Evan Noll is a first-year majoring in American studies.
November 2010 11
Cover
Public Service Today
Why youth get involved, and why they don’t
It is a well-known fact that systems work better.” This pattern cessfully mobilized UNC students young people tend not to be as po- extends beyond the youth; in gen- for the National Association for the litically active as the rest of the pop- eral, candidates running for office Advancement of Colored People ulation. With the notion of “dirty often spout desires of “cleaning up (NAACP), as well. NAACP politipolitics” floating in their heads, Washington.” cal action co-chairs on campus, Jensome students nifer Nwachukwu and Lee turn away from Godley, both suggested any involvement that students are especially “Youth frequently do not understand how with the political committed to seeing imimportant voting or participating through sphere. UNC-CH provements in their own volunteerism is until they are out in the real has many outliers community. world, dealing with the consequences made to this trend, with Yet, just as there are by public service leaders.” a high number of youth dreaming of getting students—political involved and making a difscience, global studference, there are others ies, public policy, who neither follow poliand peace, war, and defense majors, On the UNC-CH campus, tics nor hold any ambitions of paramong others—who are interested certain issues tend to attract more ticipating in public service. If young in public service and becoming in- student involvement than others. adults are the future of this country, volved with politics precisely to clean Our university’s nationally renowned how can some of today’s youth be so it up. Carolina alumnus Jordan Rog- chapter of the Roosevelt Institute has blasé about politics, public service, ers, who graduated in 2009 with a and the future of degree in political science, described the nation? Caro“People see the bureaucracy and that as his experience. “I think most lina alumna Maryred tape and want to make our people,” Rogers explained to The am Al-Zoubi, who public systems work better.” Hill, “have a tendency to enter into graduated in the the political sphere or public service spring of 2010 with because they want to make a differa major in internaence. In other words, they want to seen remarkable growth in its eco- tional studies and a minor in social change things.” Rogers argued that nomics center, the subgroup of stu- and economic justice, shared some of oftentimes students choose to enter dents that works to create economic her thoughts on the matter with The into public service exactly because of policy recommendations. Accord- Hill. Al-Zoubi spent the months all its problems. “It may be ironic,” ing to the chapter’s Vice President leading up to the midterm elections Rogers said, “but it seems that most for Policy Research, Junior Grayson in a fellowship with a Get Out the people who want to enter into pub- Cooper, these students have focused Vote campaign based in Chicago. lic service are doing so because they heavily on local economic policy, One of the key obstacles that Alwant to change the way it operates. as opposed to the more politically Zoubi has witnessed in youth apathy People see the bureaucracy and red charged national economic policy is a lack of understanding. “In speaktape and want to make our public options. Local issues have more suc- ing with my high school volunteers,
12 The Hill
Cover
and the people we were reaching out to, especially the youth,” Al-Zoubi said, “I often had to break down why this campaign and why voting is so important.” Al-Zoubi said that youth frequently do not understand how important voting or participating through volunteerism is until they are out in the real world, dealing with the consequences made by public service leaders. “And by that point,” AlZoubi said, “many tell me they no longer have the time to volunteer or get involved like they would have in college or even high school.” The problem is not just a lack of understanding, but sometimes a lack of outside motivation to
get involved. Politicians target voting populations, or at least popula-
It may seem as though the system works against youth involvement. With their interests being ignored in a complex political system, many youth are discouraged from entering into public service. However there is also a population of young adults interested, motivated, and desirous of change. These young adults will likely enter into public service after graduation, seeking to change the system, and they will be proof that not all young people are apathetic.
Local issues have more successfully mobilized UNC students tions more likely to vote. Therefore, youth and minorities often get ignored when politicians are on the campaign trail or in office. Often if citizens feel their interests are being ignored, they feel discouraged from voting or campaigning. And if these groups have felt ignored by the system, it is no surprise they tend to lack any desire to join the system— even if to fight for change.
Sarah Wentz is a sophomore majoring in global studies and political science.
November 2010 13
Cover
Youth Turnout and Voting in the Midterm Elections About one in five citizens between the ages of 18 and 29 voted in this year’s midterm elections. Turnout was significantly lower than for the midterm elections of 2006, but by no means was it abominable. The recent election showed a tremendous drop in the number of youth votes from the presidential elections of 2008, but historically, all voters turn out in fewer numbers for midterm elections than for presidential ones—15 percent less, on average. The youngest segment of the population is also the most progressive, and young voters voted for Republican candidates only in the reddest of the red states. This current generation of young voters is the most progressive generation since exit polling began in 1972. However, young voters were not as progressive in this election as they were in 2008. No other age bracket supported Illinois’ freshman senator like twenty-somethings. Young people identified with Obama, who stood apart from other politicians a decade or two his senior and counted Jay-Z and Ludacris among his
14 The Hill
favorite rappers. These same voters, who in 2008 backed Obama by a margin of 34 points, backed the Democratic congressional candidates by only 16 points this time around, according to exit polls conducted by the Edison Research in association with AP and CNN. The youngest voters, those between the ages of 18 and 24, were even more progressive their voting, favoring congressional Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 19 points. Every other age group of the electorate favored the GOP, with those above the age of 65 granting Republicans an 18-point advantage. The sharp drop in support for Democrats suggests that the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) aggressive appeals to young people were not as effective as party leaders had hoped they would be. President Obama specifically targeted young voters at a number of events in the month leading up to the election. He staged rallies reminiscent of his campaigning days at college campuses and in open-air stadiums. He also held a youth town
hall meeting sponsored by MTV, BET and CMT. Obama aired a TV ad on BET and MSNBC encouraging young voters not to “sit this one out.” The DNC spent approximately $2.5 million in advertising to broadcast videos on websites targeting young people, such as Hulu, Facebook, YouTube, Pandora, MTV and Comedy Central. Analysts have said that the campaign was the largest online advertising buy of this election cycle. In a telephone interview with The Hill, Maegan Carberry, communications director for Rock the Vote, said that “young people are still enthusiastic about the political participation, but this season many young people felt cynicism towards the partisan bickering. While negative campaigning may have helped to win elections, it did not engage young Americans this campaign season. In places where Rock the Vote invested its resources and followed the 2008 campaign model, however, the number of votes cast by young people did go up from the last midterm elections. In youth-dense precincts in North Carolina, turnout doubled from 2006, and at the University of Florida, turnout went up 45%. According to Maegan Carberry, this is a “generation of dreamers that has been mobilized and called into action in the 2008 elections.” But it is now this same generation that the conomy has affected most drastically. The unemployment rate for those under 30 remains at 19.1 percent, which is much higher than the unemployment rate of other age groups, and these economic troubles
Cover
Growing Up with the “Daily Show” Jon Stewart’s appeal to this generation of young adults is astonishing. The Comedy Central satirist has gained a huge following from “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” which has averaged 1.9 million viewers nightly in 2010. His satirical late-night news program has proven an especially popular choice for people in the 18-49 demographic, who represent 74% of total viewership. Stewart recently took his comedy act on the road, travelling to Washington, D.C., to rally support for more reasonable, tempered political discourse. The ‘Rally to Restore Sanity, and/or Fear’ took place October 30 on the National Mall. The event attracted an estimated 215,000 sign-wielding people who expressed their discontent with the fear-mon-
Continued from previous page... are a key cause of voter apathy. In his “Vote Again 2010” TV spot, Jay-Z encouraged young people to “Fight for what’s right. Fight for what you believe in. And stay forever young.” Judging from the decline in young voters who came out to the polls this election season, it is clear that the 2010 midterms was not the election for the excited young voters of the 2008 presidential election; rather, it was disgruntled older voters who dominated this election season. Radhika Kshatriya is a sophomore.
gering state of American politics. Just days before the rally, Stewart drew 2.8 million viewers when he welcomed President Barack Obama to the show. The host questioned Obama on many of the promises he made in the 2008 campaign. While he did incorporate some comedy into the interview, Stewart posed serious questions about the situation facing the country and allowed Obama to answer for his administration’s actions. While Stewart is the first to deny that he is the veritable news source of the modern age, the fact remains that among college-age viewers, his is one of the most popular late-night shows. “I don’t believe that most people watching Jon Stewart are watching it to get information,” UNC Journalism School Professor Leroy Towns, an expert on politics and the media, told The Hill in an interview. Towns suggested that with so much media interaction, young people very rarely get their news from only one source. This means that Stewart supplements a broader pool from which college students are informed. “One of the reasons that young people like to watch Jon Stewart was pretty evident on that program,” said Towns of the Obama interview. “Jon Stewart referring to President Obama as ‘dude’; young people respond to that.” Comparing Stewart to Fox News’ conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, who held a rally of his own in August, Towns said that “we all have to keep in mind about both
of these people is that they are entertainers—they’re not in the business of conveying news”. Referring to a piece on the economy that Stewart did, Towns asked, “Did that inform me in any way? Well, maybe not, but it may have put some information in a different perspective that I really appreciated.” The Hill’s Editor-in-Chief Caroline Guerra attended the ‘Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear’ on the Mall and said, “I thought the rally was absolutely hilarious. The absurdity of it all fit right in with the rally’s “take it down a notch” motto.” Guerra continued, saying “I was floored by the amount of people that showed up, though I’m not surprised that Jon Stewart’s call for rationality hits home for a lot of people that are sick of watching pundits scream at each other.” Freshman Mandi Gonzalez is one of millions of young people who enjoy watching Stewart. “I love his political satire.” Asked what she gets from watching Jon Stewart, Gonzalez said “What I get out of Jon Stewart is most of my political news. He is really honest about it and makes fun of it at the same time. That makes it even more authentic.” Regardless of accusations of liberal bias, Jon Stewart is a media phenomenon. This young generation is facing a new landscape of political news where Stewart has found his own niche. The comedian is proving that politics makes for great comedy. Kevin Uhrmacher is a first-year majoring in political science and journalism.
November 2010 15
Cover
Free Speech and National Security For many, the November elections confirmed the sentiments of unnerving frustration felt throughout the United States. Issues such as the economy, healthcare and national security were some of the primary concerns driving most people to the polls. However, for those primarily concerned about the current state of civil rights against the backdrop of heightened national security policies, the election was an agonizing reminder of what they see as the failures of the current administration. Matters of civil rights under President Barack Obama, especially in the wake of the war on terror, have prodded many to question the intentions of the current administration and the fundamental viability of civil rights in this age of heightened uncertainty. A case that has caused some proponents of civil rights to be disillusioned with the current administration is Wilner v. National Security Agency (NSA). On May 17, 2007, a group of attorneys with clients at Guantanamo Bay filed suit against the NSA and the Department of Justice. They demanded that the executive branch comply with legal requests to turn over all records of NSA’s warrantless wiretapping of 23 Guantanamo attorneys. In the summer of 2008, the district court granted summary judgment to the government, thereby accepting that the government can refuse to either confirm or deny the existence of such records. This decision was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit on December 30, 2009. Though Wilner is a court case, it is still indicative of White House policy influence. UNC Law
16 The Hill
Professor Kathryn A. Sabbeth, cocounsel for the Wilner plaintiffs with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York and the Chicago-based law firm Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd stated in an interview with The Hill, “No one wants to be the judge to rule that the terrorist surveillance program is unconstitutional.” This past spring, the Supreme Court released a decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case since 9/11 to directly address the tension between national security and free speech. Ralph D. Fertig, a seasoned civil rights attorney and president of the Humanitarian Law Project, challenged the federal law that criminalizes material aid to foreign terrorist organizations. This challenge was based on the grounds that providing civil training for the sake of peaceful conflict resolution is protected as speech by the First Amendment. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, affirming the federal laws’ prohibition of providing intangible assistance to foreign groups deemed terrorist organizations by the State Department. Sabbeth outlined “training in peace negotiations,” and “petitions to the U.N” as examples of activities that the current material support statute appears to forbid, and the Supreme Court confirmed that the ban is constitutional. As Professor Sabbeth maintains, “The Supreme Court, in June of this year, found no First Amendment problem with this application of the material support statute.” Two specific policies enacted by the Obama administration further illuminate civil rights policy in the context of the war on terror.
The first is the executive order legitimizing the targeted assassination of American-born cleric Anwar alAwlaki. This is the first instance ever in which the executive branch has permitted the assassination of a U.S. citizen. The second is the continuation of the controversial terrorist surveillance program under Obama, which was heavily augmented by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendments passed by Congress in 2008. Under the new provisions, probable cause is now no longer a factor in determining who can be wiretapped, as FISA court judges do not have to be informed of the identity of the subject, nor the reason behind the surveillance. Many who criticize Obama on civil rights and national security often cite his earlier statements, including when he deemed the Bush administration’s use of the terrorist surveillance program “unconstitutional and illegal.” This same criticism was extended by Obama to the continued existence of Guantánamo Bay, which is currently still in operation, regardless. At the end of the day, it seems as though the Obama administration has not been immune to the friction between competing desires to protect free speech and National Security, as so many hoped he would be. For Sabbeth, hopeful resignation remains the best outlook in light of all these recent developments. “I think he could do better,” she stated in reference to Obama. Ismaail Qaiyim is a junior majoring in history and peace, war, & defense.
Cover
Drowning
The foreclosure crisis in America Foreclosures foretold failure. While a seemingly healthy economy did not falter until August 2008, the massive number of homeowners foreclosing on their mortgages started an entire year earlier in 2007. Soon, as unemployment skyrocketed to double-digit percentages in the United States, subprime mortgages became scrutinized as the cause of so much economic and social pain in the country. The foreclosure crisis has cost the American economy dearly. As literally millions of households have been boarded up and taken over by the same banks that authorized the dubious mortgages, Wall Street has lot the American people’s trust. As a result, loans, especially home equity loans, which are crucial to recovery, are becoming scarcer as both banks and borrowers are increasingly fearful of the consequences of these loans. The strain on government should not be underestimated either. The federal government has spent billions to lessen the burden on homeowners to pay back their mortgages. Local governments are completely overwhelmed, especially those in areas of weak economic growth with little ability to generate revenue. So how did this happen? Politicians and the media quickly turn to “sub-prime mortgages,” or mortgages given to borrowers with low credit scores and even lower probabilities of paying back the loans. These mortgages tell a story of
the little man being manipulated by greedy banks. While a factor, these mortgages do not reveal the whole story. Economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas Stan Liebowitz argued in a Wall Street Journal editorial that negative equity loans, or “zero-money down” loans in which the mortgage had more value than the house, had a far greater effect. Falling housing prices has exacerbated the incentive for home-owners to foreclose. Many Americans ignore the long-term personal consequences of foreclos-
structural flaws, the economy risks experiencing a second credit crunch and a potential double-dip recession. Despite bleak projections, there are solutions on the horizon. First, patience is a virtue. As long as unemployment continues to rise and housing prices continue to fall, the foreclosure crisis will continue. In time, as these factors improve, so too will the housing crisis. Rapidly increasing housing prices with narrowing speculative investment caused a massive housing bubble before 2007. It takes time to rebalance the market. Second, the government needs to redirect funds and incentives. Currently, the federal government is doing what is politically effective by giving assistance to citizens to subsidize their mortgages and requiring banks to lower the amount necessary to pay back mortgages. But this ignores why people are foreclosing. Regulation needs to account for the zero-down foreclosures and bank transparing; for example, a lower credit rat- ency. The government should maning and “strategically defaulted” on date that mortgages have a certain their mortgage. money-down value to decrease the Recently, the full extent number of foreclosures. It should of banks’ irresponsibility has come also have more stringent oversight to light. Bank of America just last of banking practices to avoid serimonth decided to halt all foreclo- ous lapses in judgment. If such polisures because it needed to review all cies had been in place before 2007, of the documents for potential er- a housing bubble and the resulting rors. Horror stories of “robo-signers” foreclosure crisis may have never emerged of banks signing thousands happened. of mortgages not only without reviewing them but also without hav- Aaron Lutkowitz is a first-year majoring all of the necessary documenta- ing in business and political science. tion. As these banks struggle to fix
November 2010 17
Cover
Google Enters the Car Industry The Russian police officer looked flabbergasted. He came closer, looked around, but he still could not decipher the mystery. The van had no one in the driver’s seat, but it was moving as though it had a driver. What in the world? Then a passenger in the car said something that astounded him. The van was driverless; it used GPS devices, lasers, cameras and other sensors to drive itself. That was not all. Designed by Vislab, the van committed to an 8,077mile road trip from Italy to China that would take it through Eastern Europe. During a three-month journey, where the van’s controls were only overridden for rare exceptions like tollbooths and the cramping of cars in Moscow, the Italian Vislab van successfully made it to China— an incredible feat in the world of driverless transportation. Driverless transportation is not a new idea. Yet in the past, it did not leave the conceptual stage. Now, however, technological advancement and private interest are beginning to converge to produce awe-inspiring results. For example, consider Google Car. At first glance, you might suspect that Google is entering yet another market to sell cars. Not quite. The Google Car Project is all about self-driving cars. Google Cars are adapted versions of the
18 The Hill
Toyota Prius that use maps, video cameras, radar and laser technology to detect traffic and drive. In total, Google Cars have driven about 140,000 miles with minimal human intervention; road trips include the Pacific Coast Highway, around Lake
days. That time could be spent reading or sleeping. In other words, opportunity costs from driving can be reduced. Not everyone is excited about driverless commuting. Google has been criticized for investing
Tahoe and over the Golden Gate Bridge. There has only been one accident. Incredibly, that was when another car rear-ended a Google Car at a red light. Like the Vislab Van, the Google Car always has a person at hand. Not only is this important for testing purposes, it also addresses concerns of the law: a person is required to always be in control of a vehicle. Developers of driverless vehicles believe that they can follow this law by having an easy override mechanism, such as merely moving the steering wheel. The motivations behind building driverless cars are obvious. Google notes that about 1.2 million people die in car accidents every year; a smart automated car can drive far more safely than a human. Moreover, people spend about fiftytwo minutes commuting on working
millions of dollars of stockholders’ money into the Google Car project. After all, there is little to suggest that consumers would shift to automated cars and relinquish the independence and thrill of driving. All the same, even if the dream held by Google, Vislab and other researchers—of roads replete with safe, environmentally friendly driverless vehicles—remains distant (an optimistic estimate for a commercial car is 2018), research in driverless transportation is breaking new ground in related areas. Wesley Snyder, a professor at North Carolina State University, commented in a phone interview with The Hill, “Now I am working on a very specific subcase, when the driver loses control of his car, say he has a heart attack. I just want to get the car off the road and stopped.” His research is focused exclusive
Cover
Best of the Blog Google Starts Border Dispute In the Information Age, we find everything online. Need to know something? Google it. It’s the immediate reply when you have no clue. Enter the right key words, and there you go! Multiple entries will pop up instantaneously, allowing you to verify whatever Google tells you. And Google has become more than just a search engine; Google has all kinds of features and products, including the ever so popular Google Maps. It is the Google Maps feature, typically used to provide local directions, that has caused the recent border crisis between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The border dispute is over an area along the San Juan River, and the conflict is a product of the dredging operation Nicaragua has undertaken in the river. The troubles first began when Costa Rica accused Ni-
Continued from previous page... ly on making driverless cars with just computer vision—not laser, or GPS—something that he admits is “deliberatively hard,” but has the potential for much success. Smaller applications are making their way into cars even now. Take for instance automatic braking and detection of collisions in luxury cars. Is the trajectory headed in the direction of true driverless transportation? Time will tell. Is amazing progress being made in the meantime? Yes. Krishna Kollu is a junior majoring in economics and computer science.
caragua of dumping sediment from the project on its territory (which the Nicaraguan government denies). In addition to the sediment dumping, Costa Rica claims that Nicaragua is clearing a protected Costa Rican forest and that Nicaragua has taken down the Costa Rican flag on the disputed territory and replaced it with the Nicaraguan flag. Having abolished its military after a civil war in 1948 that left over 2,000 dead, Costa Rica is hardly equipped to respond with force, and it would be easy for Nicaragua to take advantage of the situation.
a website as monolithic as Google) could be used as a defense for what could eventually be ruled an invasion and what could have easily sparked armed conflict if Costa Rica had a military. What is, perhaps, even more stunning is that this is not the first time this year that Google’s Maps function has brought fury from communities around the world. Earlier this year, Cambodia criticized the company for displaying what they claimed was a “radically misleading” border between Cambodia and Thailand. Residents of Sunrise, Florida, also directed their ire towards the California-based company earIt is not, however, Costa Rica’s lack lier this year, after they were literally of an army that is truly interesting erased off the map. Sunrise’s mayor about this issue, however. It is the claimed Google has made this error way Nicaragua has defended itself three times now, and it appears this against the accusations of conquest. latest time Sunrise remained off the In an “after-the-fact justification” grid (quite literally) for a month. of the so-called invasion, Nicaragua cited Google Maps, whose version So what does all this mean? Perhaps of the map suggested the territory nothing beyond a lesson of “be carebelonged to Nicaragua. Google, ful what you believe” and “doublehowever, has since changed the map check everything you see on the Into be in accordance with the 2009 ternet.” It also seems to show exactly decision on the matter by the Inter- how much today’s society relies on national Court of Justice. This issue the Internet—specifically, how much is rather complex, so we shall ignore faith people all around the world put all the technicalities of who actually in Google. While Google Maps is governs the territory, the validity of by no means official, it is regarded as Google Maps, and even the environ- such, and the fact that it can beget mental issues wedged in this conflict. an international crisis is, without a We will leave the Organization of doubt, cause for concern. That beAmerican States (OAS), to whom ing said, we have to admit there is Costa Rica has already submitted an something humorous about “Google appeal for judgment, to decide the said so” being the trump argument matter. Instead, we shall look at the in high-level negotiations between role that Google has played. heads of state in a border dispute. When you examine the issue from a distance, it seems absurd that a tool from an online website (even
Sarah Wentz is a sophomore majoring in global studies and political science.
November 2010 19
Opinion
Advantages to Legalization For years there has been a widespread movement for reform of current laws on marijuana use. One proposal has been the legalization of medical marijuana. Others have proposed the decriminalization of marijuana. Decriminalization would entail the abolition of criminal penalties for possessing marijuana, though regulated permits or fines might still apply. A third proposal is the legalization and regulation of marijuana recreationally. In 1998 both Washington and Oregon enacted medical marijuana laws. Since then, ten other states have enacted medical marijuana laws, and two states have enacted decriminalization laws. Currently, fourteen states have pending medical marijuana laws, and nineteen states have pending decriminalization, legalization and regulation laws. There are a variety of reasons people support the general legalization and regulation of marijuana. There are health, social, economic, law-enforcement and foreign relations justifications for this movement. Socially, a number of people believe that the prohibition of marijuana is an unwarranted government intrusion into individual freedom of choice. This is particularly salient as alcohol and tobacco, which have been shown to be more harmful than marijuana to one’s health, have been legalized and are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The regulation of marijuana would protect buyers from marijuana “cut” with any other harmful drugs, such as cocaine. Also, buyers would be able to know and to choose what amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is in the marijuana that they were buying, just as they know what type of alcohol and what percentage of alcohol they are purchasing. Regulating marijuana also helps parents, schools and law-enforcement officials keep marijuana out of the hands of children, as is the case with tobacco. Mothers in California came out in support of California’s ballot initiative Proposition 19, or the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act. They claimed that legalizing and regulating marijuana would create safer communities for all kids by reducing gang violence and eliminating the marijuana black market. The Mothers argued that our current policy of prohibiting marijuana has failed and that we need to take cannabis out of the hands of criminals. They also suggest that taxes from legalizing and regulating marijuana could be put to good use toward schools, agriculture and other infrastructural needs. Proposition 19 was significant in that it brought
20 The Hill
Point
the debate over legalizing and regulating marijuana into the public eye. In a phone interview with The Hill, Sabrina Fendrick of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws stated that Prop. 19 “got major national and international attention in the weeks before the election. It really started a legitimate conversation and is okay to talk about. It has been taboo, something people have been afraid to even show support for because of stigma and stereotype, but now it is something okay to discuss. It is a huge step.” Fiscally, marijuana is one of the United States’ top-selling agricultural products, estimated at accruing $14 billion annually in California alone. In addition, if marijuana were federally legalized and regulated, it is estimated that $8 billion would be saved annually in law enforcement spending. Legalization and regulation would also weaken Mexico’s drug war, at least in the arena of marijuana growing, trafficking, and selling. This black market would be eliminated for Mexican drug lords and they would lose their buyers of and revenue from marijuana. On another note, prisons in the United States are overcrowded. During an economic downturn, states face budget cuts—including cuts to prison budgets. As a result, states such as California have to release prisoners because they cannot afford to retain them. Due to the structuring of prison sentences, people sentenced for violent crimes are released over others sentenced for drug related crimes, including crimes related to marijuana. Some say that it is illogical to release prisoners accused of violent crimes before releasing prisoners accused of drug- and marijuana-related crimes just because they are closer to the end of their sentences. If marijuana were legalized, many criminals would not even be in the prisons and tax dollars could be used toward other initiatives. The movement to legalize and regulate marijuana has grown in numbers and in strength over the last few decades. People do not desire the legalization of marijuana only for recreation’s sake, but have thought critically about our nation’s economic state, the role of our government and the social and health ramifications of marijuana. Carey Averbook is a sophomore majoring in peace, war, & defense.
Opinion
CounterPoint
Crime and National Security Concerns
The recent controversy over California’s Proposition 19 has brought the movement to legalize marijuana into the forefront of America’s consciousness. The proposed legislation ultimately failed when it was put to voters in a ballot referendum on Election Day, but this certainly does not mean that the issue has been laid to rest. Opponents base their objections on moral grounds, logistics, costs, and international consequences. Moral objections to marijuana use are hard to generalize into one simple explanation, but the general trend is that because marijuana is currently illegal, it should be kept as such. These opponents are often concerned with the effects that legalizing marijuana would have on their children, since marijuana is considered a gateway drug that can lead to the use of harder drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. Considering that Proposition 19 would only allow the sale of marijuana to adults over 21, the proposition would ignore the large problem of teenage marijuana use, since the largest group of pot consumers is in the age range from 18 to 25, and there is a considerable percentage of younger teenagers who smoke that are not included in estimated measurements. Opponents generally believe that legalizing marijuana would actually cause an increase in use due to ease of access and the lack of fear of retribution from the law. Another objection from opponents concerns the logistical problems that arise from the legalization of marijuana. Public safety officials expressed concern that Proposition 19 would allow intoxicated individuals to get behind the wheel and drive, because the initiative does not specify the amount of marijuana a person must consume before being considered “under the influence.” Such difficulties in defining the amount of marijuana consumed would cause increased danger on the roads as public safety officials would be powerless to keep intoxi-
cated drivers from being a menace to other drivers. Additional controversy exists about where marijuana may be grown and how much marijuana private households will be allowed to produce. Other opponents have problems with the costs of enforcing laws governing marijuana usage. While the legalization of marijuana would generate tax revenues, there are many who believe that the costs associated with enforcing regulations of marijuana usage would vastly outweigh the revenues. These costs would include monetary costs such as the funds necessary for the increased hiring of public safety personnel, as well as social costs such as secondhand smoke and declines in worker productivity. One final point raised by opponents of legalizing marijuana has been the negative response from members of the international community. Mexican president Felipe Calderón vocally expressed opposition to Prop 19, stating that the legislation would not put an end to organized crime and drug trafficking on the Mexican-American border, and would possibly increase it. UNC Political Science Professor Cecilia Martinez-Gallardo stated in an email interview with The Hill, “I think that for this strategy to be effective it needs to be applied in Mexico and the United States and not only in California. Legalizing marijuana only in California creates problems of regulation and enforcement when the drug remains illegal at the federal level. Further, the positive effects of legalization (mainly the elimination of the perverse incentives that come with black markets) would not accrue if legalization is confined to one state.” Stephanie Shenigo is a junior majoring in political science.
November 2010 21
The Last Word
America’s leadership deficit Time for Obama to step up his game Political pundits have proven to be one of the Republican Party’s most valuable voter-mobilization tools. Fear is an excellent motivator, and programs such as “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and “The Glenn Beck Program” are remarkably adept at instilling it in their audiences: Limbaugh regularly refers to the Obama administration as the Regime, and Glenn Beck is perhaps best known for crying on air. These programs are effective not only because of their consistent tones and messages, but also because media personalities have no voting records and no formal political affiliations. Their entire image is based solely on what they say and do on their programs, a luxury that politicians do not have. Unlike traditional campaign media, political pundits can be entertaining enough that individuals read or watch them on a regular basis, and therefore these forms of media can actively shape political dialogue. While the Tea Party, with the support of Glen Beck and several other media figures, caused some disquiet in the Republican ranks (and cost the Republicans at least one Senate seat that should have been an easy victory), it still constitutes a large and enthusiastically anti-Democrat political movement that has done a good job of publicizing both the real and imaginary failures of the Obama administration. One of the most prevalent criticisms of the Obama administration in the wake of this last midterm
election has been that the Democrats did not do a good enough job of touting their own victories and taking the Republicans to task for being inconsistent or obstructionist. This criticism is well-founded: many people still do not understand the
Sanity/Fear as a potential starting point for a liberal counter-movement to the Tea Party: a kind of antidote to the histrionic anti-intellectualism espoused by figures such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. In many ways, it was. President Obama evidently thought there was something to be gained by associating himself with this rally, since he endorsed it personally at a small-group meeting in Ohio. Like many UNC Chapel Hill students, I attended the rally, and I was impressed by the number of enthusiastic young people I saw there. The rally was similar to the Daily Show impact Obama’s economic stimulus and Colbert Report writ large: there plan or health-care reform legisla- were plenty of gags at the expense tion, other than that both used tax- of political figures of all stripes, inpayer money. One potential solution termingled with occasional genuine to this problem is for the Democrats commentary. Stewart and Colbert’s to develop a media mouthpiece sim- message of rational discourse and ilar to Fox News for the Republi- civil disagreement was refreshing cans. Many have looked to the Daily and welcome in a political environShow and Colbert Report as poten- ment seemingly dominated by rantial candidates. Ostensibly, these two corous bickering. However, this was programs are already close liberal not a political rally: it was a party. I analogues to conservative pundits: was standing beside two kids who they are highly critical of the estab- had signs reading “Legalize Meth,” and “Obama: Velociraptor SymI was standing beside two kids who pathizer?” While had signs reading “Legalize Meth,” the rally was enand “Obama: Velociraptor joyable and enSympathizer?” tertaining, it was by no means a sea change in how the media and the lishment, present themselves as out- political left interact. siders, and maintain a consistent set Part of the reason Stewart’s of attitudes and values. rally seemed to be more of a cultural Many saw Jon Stewart and movement than a political one is beStephen Colbert’s Rally to Restore cause it was specifically engineered
Many saw Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear as a potential starting point for a liberal counter-movement to the Tea Party.
22 The Hill
The Last Word
that way. In an NPR interview with able to play to the growing sense of themselves from criticisms from the Terry Gross shortly before the rally, frustration with the tenor of Ameri- Republicans, and failing to propJon Stewart was asked to respond can political discourse, and to jump erly publicize their successes. While to accusations that this event might into that discourse would detract some might look to media figures draw crowds away from other more from the appeal of both shows. to solve these problems, it is a moot politically motivated events point until the Democratic It would appear that neither that weekend, such as the AIFParty itself can make some Jon Stewart nor Stephen Col- changes. Until the Democrats CLO and NAACP rally. Stewbert is interested in becoming have a cohesive party agenda art responded by saying “Tough s***t… I don’t have to do their a shill for the left, and they are and a consistent message that job.” It would appear that neiright not to be. appeals to voters, there is little ther Jon Stewart nor Stephen or nothing that the media can Colbert is interested in becomdo to help them to victory. ing a shill for the left, and they are What the Democrats truly need is a right not to be. The Colbert Report unified party. As with many elections and the Daily show have been so in the past, the Democrats lacked John Rudisill is a senior majoring in successful precisely because they are focus and poise, failing to defend political science.
The Last Word on
The Hill
Want to have the last word? Send your guest column (750800 words, please) to thehillpr@gmail.com or sound off on our discussion board at http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill. November 2010 23
h T o t e
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
t a n o D MEMO
1:125000258: 12345678: 0101
l l i H e
SIGNED
1234
DATE
$
DOLLARS
email us at thehillpr@gmail.com
WORK FOR THE HILL! Interested in joining our staff as a writer, blogger, editor, designer, or artist?
email thehillpr@gmail.com