The Hill
Chapel Hill Political Review December 2010
http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill
Volume X, Issue III
What happened in 2010? Looking back on an eventful year
Midterms 2010 Looking at the midterm elections in even more detail
Who said what? See some of the memorable things public figures have said this year
Supreme Court Examining what the Supreme Court has been up to
About Us
From the Editor:
The Hill Staff
To our readers:
Until Spring 2009, The Hill published content solely in print, distributing a few issues each academic year. In April 2009, however, we launched our blog and have since expanded our readership beyond what we could have ever imagined. We now have readers not only beyond UNC-CH’s campus, but beyond North Carolina, and beyond our nation’s borders. With the blog, The Hill has been able to drastically increase the amount of content we produce. We feature new content weekly on our blog, and the best of it makes its way into our magazine each issue. But we at The Hill are not done expanding. This issue marks the first of what will hopefully become a long tradition of publishing issues online each semester. This issue features new content from our writers, as well as some of the pieces we’re most proud of posted
Send your comments!
to the blog this fall. You’ll find it looks similar to our standard issues, but with its own unique flair. When you’re not constrained by the costs of publishing, anything is possible. In this issue, we take a look back at what happened in 2010 (pg 6). It was an eventful year to say the least, with devastating earthquakes, midterm elections, volcanic ash from Iceland, and the removal of all combat forces from Iraq. We examine an interesting Supreme Court case (pg 11), reminisce on some notable quotes from 2010 (pg 13) and much more. Thank you for downloading our very first issue of The Hill: Online. We hope you enjoy, and we hope you continue to read in the future. Sarah Wentz is a sophomore majoring in political science and global studies. thehillpr@gmail.com
We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or email (no more than 250 words, please). 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.unc.edu/thehill http://chapelhillpoliticalreview.wordpress.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.
2 The Hill
MANAGING EDITOR Sarah Wentz EDITOR Caroline Guerra STAFF Rachelle Branca Eric Eikenberry Caroline Guerra Karina Ibrahim Alex Jones Kevin Uhrmacher Tunu wa-Dutumi Sarah Wentz ART Connor Sullivan DESIGNER IN CHARGE Rachelle Branca DESIGN & PHOTOGRAPHY Sarah Wentz TREASURER Kendall Law FACULTY ADVISOR Ferrel Guillory
Contents
The Hill: Online December 2010
Volume X, Issue III
Contents Features
5 Healthcare by the Numbers 13 Quotes from 2010 18 Julian Assange & Wikileaks Cover
6 Timeline of 2010 Five Faces from the Midterm 8 Elections Warming Hits the Su11 Global preme Court
In Every Issue Notes from The Hill The Last Word
December 2010 3
Notes from The Hill
Notes from The Hill Review
I. O.U.S.A. :America’s Got Debt
I’ll admit that I’ve suddenly become, well, not addicted, but highly interested in documentaries. I think half of the films in my Netflix queues are probably documentaries, and most of them are probably political documentaries. Hey, I’m a political junkie, it’s not my fault. Anyway, I recently watched an interesting documentary about America’s growing debt, entitled I.O.U.S.A. Produced by Patrick Creadon, well-known for his film Wordplay, the film debuted in 2008. I.O.U.S.A was well received, making Roger Ebert’s list of 5 Best Documentary Films of 2008, and competing in the 2008 Sundance Festival. CNN broadcasted the film in Jan. 2009.
the movement to cut government spending, increase taxes, and cut imports, this appears to be more opinion. There is truth, however, in the fact that politicians don’t want I.O.U.S.A. follows Walker and Bix- to advocate for these policies. It’s by as they conducted their “Fiscal difficult to blame them, however, Wake-Up Tour” for the Concord for while it may be for the better Coalition across the country in good of the country, these practic2008. The film was aptly timed as es do not get politicians elected to it debuted just as the financial cri- office. The other section of the film sis began to gain momentum and focuses on what Bixby and Walkcatch the attention of the general er refer to as the savings deficit, public. So no matter what you think which focuses more on individuals of the film, you have to give credit to than government spending. The the masterminds behind the move- savings deficit is defined as livment and the film for forecasting ing beyond one’s means, garnerthe problem and making efforts ing debt rather than savings- and to educate the public on the issue. Bixby and Walker accuse many of Americans of this practice. Is In the film, the debt crisis is dividthis true? Probably, unless you can The film boasts interviews with ed into four sections, highlighting claim credit card debt is not a ramnotable figures Warren Buffet, what they identify as the four main pant problem, and most AmeriAlan Greenspan, David Walker, issues of the debt problem: the cans have substantial savings. The and Robert Bixby. Okay, you may budget deficit, the unequal bal- film provides contrary evidence, not have heard of Bixby and Walk- ance of payments, the leadership but hey- if you’ve got the proof… er, but they are noteworthy. Bixby deficit, and the savings deficit. The is the Executive Director of the existence of a budget deficit, of The film is a little dry, admitConcord Coalition, a nonpartisan course, cannot be argued with; tedly, and one must have some grassroots organization that seeks and while many want more gov- interest in the issue in order to to educate the public about fiscal ernment benefits, the all-around be able to sit through the film. If responsibility and the debt crisis. consensus is that the deficit does you’ve got no interest in the growWalker served as the Comptroller need to be diminished. The un- ing debt, then this is not the film General of the US (head of the Gov- equal balance of payments stems for you. But if, like me, you worry ernment Accountability Office) from trade, the film explains, as (probably more than necessary) from 1998-2008. Walker resigned the US imports more than it ex- about the nation’s debt, this is a from the Comptroller General po- ports- draining money from the good film to watch. Mostly fact, sition in Feb. 2008 to become the economy that cannot be matched theory, and explanation, it will CEO and president of the Peter with our limited exports. This is likely teach you something you G. Peterson Foundation (which basic economics, and is also dif- didn’t know about the debt crisis. also promotes fiscal responsibil- ficult to argue with. Personally, I ity. Walker has joined forces with won’t try. As for the leadership Sarah Wentz is a sophomore majorthe Concord Coalition to promote deficit, which claims there is a lack ing in political science and global fiscal responsibility. Walker and of political leaders willing to lead studies.
4 The Hill
Bixby are two prominent faces in the slowly growing movement for fiscal responsibility in the government and amongst citizens.
Notes from The Hill
Review
Who’s “Fair Game?”
I love me some political drama. There’s nothing like a secret CIA cover-up story to get the blood pumping, and “Fair Game” certainly fits the bill.
the White House goes after his wife, exposing her as a CIA operative who had been living a secret second life outside of suburbia.
The political thriller premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May as the only American film in the main competition. Reviews after the initial screening were mixed; some celebrated the film’s intellectual complexity, while others called it ‘by-the-book’. Ultimately, “Fair Game” calls into question the Bush administration’s claims that were key in justifying the invasion of Iraq.
The stunning portrayals of Plame and Wilson, by Academy Award winners Naomi Watts and Sean Penn, deserve much acclaim. My only reservation with the film lies in its screenplay. The villainization of the White House makes for good cinema, but how much is too much? In giving us Valerie Plame’s side of the story, the film isn’t exactly what I would call fair and balanced.
we invaded in the first place. Was the White House sure of its plan to invade early on and merely looking for evidence to back up this plan? The opening credits seemed more suitable for a Michael Moore scareyou-‘til-you-hate-the-Bush-administration movie. Going into “Fair Game” and assuming it’s not an exaggeration would be big mistake.
If nothing else, this film tells the story of the power of the government. That power places tension on Plame and Wilson’s marriage, pushing them to the brink when he wants to pursue justice and she The 2003 Plame Affair serves as the But maybe in those circumstances, feels that nothing should be done. basis for the film. Former Ambassa- the White House was fair game for dor Joe Wilson reports back from a villainization. Consider that after The film works on so many levels. Middle-East mission that there is no the incident, Ms. Plame had no Its greatest success is its ability to way Iraq purchased yellowcake, a way to get her side of the story plant questions into the head of the known ingredient in the production out there. I found myself thinking viewer. And for that, it is a movof WMDs. But Wilson is ignored, that this film was her final revenge ie that anyone who passes judgand President George Bush makes on the men who transformed her ment on the Iraq War or Valerie a statement contrary to his findings life when they revealed her secret. Plame would benefit from seeing. in the State of the Union. Wilson does not take kindly to his find- “Fair Game” questions the WMD Kevin Uhrmacher is a first-year maings being swept under the rug, claim that was so central to US in- joring in journalism and political and writes a New York Times Op- volvement in Iraq. The exposed science. Ed explaining that the president actions of the administration make lied. But his attack backfires when audiences reconsider exactly why
Healthcare By the Numbers Republican Contingent Says: $1.2 trillion cost of the bill for FY2010 - FY2020 12 new tax increases on families making less than $250,000 $436 billion in subsidies going directly to healtcare companies to provide coverage.
1
23
Compiled by Kevin Uhrmacher
White House Says: 32 million uninsured will be covered $100 billion reduction in the budget deficit 625 people lost their health insurance every hour in 2009 December 2010 5
Timeline
O
2010
By: Sarah Wentz
kay, we’ll admit it. When we first started plotting this issue, we had to really sit back, think and figure out what exactly happened in 2010. Because really, it was an eventful year: with earthquakes, the declaration to the end of the Iraqi War, the passing of healthcare reform, can you blame us for forgetting about some of the smaller stuff? So, just in case you’re a little fuzzy on what happened in 2010, here’s an overview. We hope it helps.
Jan.
1 Spain assumes the Presidency of the Council
of the European Union, replacing Sweden who held the presidency for the prior term.
2
North Carolina’s ban on smoking in public places (including bars and restaurants) takes effect.
12 A magnitude 7.0 earthquake shakes the very
foundation of Haiti. With a confirmed death toll of 230,000, the Haiti quake is one of the deadliest earthquakes on record. Nearly a year later, Haiti is still scrambling to recover from the earthquake.
Feb. 12
The XXI Olympic Winter Games, held in Canada, begin.
18 Andrew Joseph Stack sets fire to his home
and flies his private plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Another reminder than terrorism can be home-grown.
27
A magnitude 8.8 earthquake jolts Chile, which despite being one of the largest recorded in history, does not create the same amount of devastation as in Haiti (primarily because most of the Chilean quake effects were seen in rural areas).
Mar. 21
The House of Representatives passes the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. President Obama will sign the act into law on April 23, but the debate won’t stop even then. Really, can passing legislation ever be simple?
14 Volcanic ash from an eruption of Icelandic
ice cap Eyjafjallajökull spreads through the air, interrupting air traffic over Northern and Western Europe and aggravating travelers all over the world.
20
The Deepwater Horizon oil platform explodes killing eleven workers and commencing an oil spill that will last for months. As the spillage continued and the damage to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. coastline continued, international debate commenced about the practice and procedures of offshore drilling.
23 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signs the Sup-
port Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act into law, the strict anti-immigration measure that caught national attention and sparked considerable controversy. Say, that reminds us—got I.D.?
May 2
The Eurozone and the IMF approve a €110 billion bailout package for Greece.
19
Protests in Bangkok, Thailand result in a clash with the military, ending with 91 deaths and over 2100 injured.
June 11
The 2010 FIFA World Cup commences in South Africa along with a barrage of jokes and comments about the vuvuzela. We’d insert one here, but it’s just not the same without sound.
19 China announces it will raise the yuan against
April
the U.S. dollar after the United States promises to penalize China unless it does so.
7
27 The U.S. Dept. of Justice arrests ten people
Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev flees Bishkek after rioting. Former Prime Minister Roza Otunbayeva assumes the presidency at the behest of the opposition as they take control of the government.
10
The president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, is among 96 killed in an airplane crash over western Russia.
6 The Hill
accused of being Russian sleeper agents, and participating in the Illegals Program under the auspice of gathering information about the United States. Ultimately, the ten arrested Russians will be exchanged with the Russian government for a few U.S. citizens arrested in Russia on the count of spying.
Timeline
July 1 Belgium takes over the Presidency of the Coun-
cil of the European Union for its six month term.
25 Wikileaks publishes more than 90,000 internal reports about the War in Afghanistan.
Aug. 4 Proposition 8 (the same-sex marriage ban in
California) is ruled unconstitutional by Judge Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
31 President Obama declares the end of combat operations in Iraq.
Sept. 21 The U.S. Senate fails to pass a bill that would have repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Oct. 10 The Netherland Antilles are dissolved, the
islands split up and obtain new constitutional statuses.
13 The 33 miners trapped 700 meters under-
ground after a mining accident in San Jose Mine are brought to the surface after surviving an astounding 69 days in the mine.
19 A U.S. Federal Judge strikes down the Dept. of Justice appeal on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ruling. The military begins accepting applications for homosexual service members, and DADT is temporarily lifted.
20
Juan William’s comment about becoming nervous when he sees passengers wearing “Muslim Garb” on an airplane sparks controversy and prompts his dismissal from NPR. But if you were feeling bad for him, don’t, Williams was given a $2 million, three-year contract the next day from Fox News.
Nov.
2 Election Day! Citizens around the nation vote
in the 2010 Midterm Elections. The Democrats manage to retain control of the Senate, but the control of the House goes to the Republicans. Only a couple of hours after polls close, serious discussion of 2012 begins, which just goes to show that the election cycle truly never ceases.
11
Korea.
23
North Korea shells Yeonpyeong Island prompting a military response from South Korea and a drastic increase in tensions between the two nation-states.
28 Wikileaks releases over 250,000 American diplomatic cables, including over 100,000 labeled “secret” or “confidential.”
29 The EU agrees to a €85 billion rescue pack-
age for the Republic of Ireland from the EFSF, the IMF, and bilateral loans from the UK, Denmark, and Sweden.
Dec. 2
The House of Representatives passes a bill that extends tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 year, and raises cuts for those with a yearly earning of over that. The Senate strikes down the bill two days later, but Obama begins negotiations with the Republicans to amend the bill and allow it to pass.
10
The conclusion of the 2010 UN Climate Change Conference held in Cancun, Mexico.
13 A Virginia federal judge rules that parts of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional. The judge’s ruling is specifically based on the individual mandate that would require all Americans to get health care by 2014.
15 The US Senate passes the Obama-GOP tax
compromise bill. The House of Representatives passes the bill (entitled The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010) as well the next day. On the Dec. 17, President Obama signs the bill into law.
17 Mohamed Bouzazi sets himself on fire, spark-
ing protests across Tunisia over unemployment, food inflation, government corruption, censorship of media and speech, and poor living conditions. Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution sparks protests in neighboring Arab countries, and continues into 2011.
18 Following in the U.S. House’s footsteps, the US Senate passes the stand-alone repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. President Obama signs the bill into law on Dec. 22.
What will happen in 2011? Continue to read The Hill to find out!
The G-20 summit begins in Seoul, South
December 2010 7
Domestic
Faces
Five T
2010 MIDTERMS
From the
he 2010 midterm elections left us with one new reality: one in which the Republicans control the House of Representatives and have made large gains in the Senate. The midterm elections also left us with some distinct characters, some new, some old, all compelling. Here are a few of the most important and interesting faces to emerge from the 2010 midterm elections.
Harry Reid: The Comeback Kid After serving four terms in the Senate, Democratic Senator Harry Reid seemed poised for another easy re-election in the state of Nevada. But quite surprisingly, Reid found himself in the middle of a tightly contested Senate race against Republican Sharron Angle, another Tea Party backed Republican. Angle was an unusual, media-evading candidate who had little governing experience and was also prone to media gaffes. Despite this, polls consistently put Angle ahead of Reid in the lead up to the November elections. Many political pundits and commentators were writing his obituary, but through an efficient get-out-the-vote campaign and an unexpectedly large voter turnout, Reid prevailed on November 2. Reid will return to a Senate that is significantly more conservative than the one he’s led for the past four years, and it will be interesting to see how he reacts to the newly emboldened minority.
8 The Hill
Christine O’Donnell: She Is Not a Witch The rise and fall of Christine O’Donnell embodies some of the shortcomings of the Tea Party movement. In an election that could have easily been a Senate seat pickup for the Republicans O’Donnell’s extremely conservative positions and odd personal history gave the Democrats an easy Senatorial victory in Connecticut. She released a campaign ad that consisted of her staring into the camera and declaring that she is “not a witch”, ending by stating “I’m you.” The ad was widely panned by political commentators and was even parodied on a sketch on Saturday Night Live. In a political debate with her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons, O’Donnell displayed a lack of knowledge on the American constitution, asking “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” Nevertheless, Christine O’Donnell was interesting to watch in the time preceding the midterm elections, and it appears as though she hasn’t given up all of her political aspirations.
Domestic Marco Rubio: A Rising Star In Florida, Tea Party-backed candidate Marco Rubio was elected to the Senate following a three-way race. His two opponents, Democrat Kendrick Meek and Independent Charlie Crist—who left the Republican party to run as an independent— effectively split the Democratic vote, giving Rubio an advantage in a race he was poised to win from the beginning. Marco Rubio is one of the more compelling figures to emerge from the 2010 midterms and seems to have a bright political future ahead of him. He is the second youngest member of the Senate at the age of 39,he is good-looking, he is charismatic, and he is Hispanic, appealing to the fastest growing portion of the American electorate. He definitely has the potential to have a real impact on American politics both in the immediate and distant future. Lisa Murkowski: The Unlikely Victor With the 2008 Ted Stevens controversy and the startling rise of Sarah Palin, Alaska seems to be the breeding ground for odd politics and even odder politicians. The 2010 midterm elections were no different, as shown by the compelling threeway Senatorial race between Republican Joe Miller, Democrat Scott McAdams, and third party candidate Lisa Murkowski. After being defeated by Tea Party favorite—and Sarah Palin endorsed—Joe Miller in the Republican primary, Murkowski launched a fierce and determined write-in campaign. The odds were against her, the only person
who has been elected to the Senate through a write-in campaign was Strom Thurmond in 1954. Murkowski was able to overcome the odds, however, and was re-elected to the Senate. In her victory, Lisa Murkowski defeated both the establishment of the Republican National Committee and the influence of Sarah Palin, leaving little doubt that she will return to the Senate as a force to be reckoned with. Lisa Murkowski will be an interesting Senator to watch over the next few years, as it seems likely that her allegiance to the Republican Party and its agenda has dwindled in response to their abandonment of her during the primaries. Rand Paul: The Other Dr. Paul There will now be two Pauls in Congress, and both of them are poised to give headaches to the Republican establishment. Republican Dr. Rand Paul, son of Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, will be the new senator from Kentucky. Paul was backed by the Tea Party movement and, just as his father, identifies himself as a constitutional conservative and a libertarian. Paul holds many controversial views; he once stated that he opposes certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to its supposed infringement on private ownership. Paul’s unwavering dedication to the Constitution and his tendency to speak his own mind makes him an incredibly fascinating addition to the U.S. Senate.
Tunu wa-Dutumi is a junior majoring in global studies..
December 2010 9
Domestic
Incumbents, the Economy, and the 2010 Elections Posted On Our Blog on Nov. 25, 2010 Now that the transformational 2008 election of Barack Obama (which gave majorities to Democrats in both houses of Congress) has been superseded by a significant loss for the Democrats in the House of Representatives and a reduced majority in the Senate just two years later, one may look back upon the legislation of the last two years as the root cause of such an upheaval. Though one certainly cannot accuse the 111th US Congress of inaction or inefficacy, it is, however, questionable if the legislation passed by both houses contributed to a general backlash by the public against incumbent politicians, despite the possible benefits of the legislation and/or politicians’ actual involvement in the voting procedure. Indeed, it appears the Republican Party, taking the obstructionist role during the better part of the last two years, was able to channel voters’ frustration against the majority party in all levels of government into a significant victory in the 2010 midterm elections, effectively ending the across the board majority Democrats have enjoyed at the national level these past two years. Over the course of the 2010 election cycle, the trend of Democratic and Republican Party approval is highly uncorrelated to the election results, but nevertheless shows a pattern of gradual voter embracement of the Republican Party. Given the telephone interview polls provided by CBS News, it seems the Democratic Party was losing favor with voters heading into the summer, with a low 10 The Hill
approval of 37percent in a poll conducted May 20-24 coupled with a 54percent disapproval rating. However, one must note that the same poll represented a dataset low for the Republican Party as well, with an approval of 33percent and a disapproval of 55percent. Clearly, however, voters’ distrust and dislike of the Republican Party did not prevent them from giving Republicans the largest House majority since 1994’s Contract with America.
can administration. It seems that blaming the Democratic Party leadership as being the source of government inefficacy with regard to the economy (which is generally considered a major issue, particularly in years of economic recession or anemic economic growth) contributed to the highly anti-incumbent (and, hence, anti-Democrat) results of the 2010 midterm elections.
In further support of the trend of shifting public opinion, the Legislation passed by the 111th American Recovery and ReinCongress (or inherited from the vestment Act (ARRA), better 110th in new authorizations) known as the Stimulus bill, was such as the Troubled Asset Re- enacted on February 17, 2009 lief Program (TARP), the Stimulus to expand unemployment benPlan, and the Healthcare Reform efits and other social welfare bill were instrumental in chang- programs while creating jobs in ing public perception on incum- order to encourage consumer bency. Implemented by George spending. It is important to note W. Bush on October 3, 2008, the that no Republicans in the House Troubled Asset Relief Program of the Representatives voted for (TARP) was intended to pur- the bill and the majority of the chase illiquid assets from banks support derived from the Demoin order to boost the confidence crats. When asking the public of the financial sector. According about their opinion on the Stimto a Bloomberg Poll conducted ulus Plan, ABC News recently July 9-12, 58percent of interview- conducted a survey in which 68 ees declared that this was an percent of the participants deunneeded bailout while only 28 clared the ARRA was “a waste percent deemed it necessary. A of money” while only 29 percent survey provided by Democracy believed it was “well spent.” This Corps, which asked the public directly correlates with public whether the candidate’s sup- sentiment in regards to approval port for TARP “makes you much ratings for Democratic and Reless likely to vote for the Demo- publican Parties. The responsicratic candidate this November” bility over slow and ineffective provides further useful insight recovery has been associated onto the public perception of with the Democratic Party due the program. Based on the 1,001 to its high support of the ARRA phone interviews, 40 percent while the Republicans have takof responders said they were en the role of obstructionists on “much less likely” to vote for a the plan. Democratic candidate while 13 percent stated “no less likely,” Because Democrats were not regardless of the fact that TARP only staunch supporters of the was initiated under a Republi- plan during the implementation
Domestic
Climate Change Charges to Court In early December, the United States Supreme Court decided to review the State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Inc. case involving global warming. The PEW Center on Global Climate Change has a great summary of the case that you can find at: http://www.pewclimate.org/ judicial-analysis/CT-v-AEP/ september-2009. I’d like to draw your attention to the second question (out of three) that will be heard by the Supreme Court; namely, “whether the Clean Air Act displaces the federal common law of nuisance.” The Obama Administration has been saying, “yes!” – in the belief that regulating greenhouse gas
continued from previous page...
emissions through the courts is complicated and inefficient. It could get difficult, they argue, to tell what the emissions standards actually are, when taking into account both the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules and various courts’ public nuisance rulings. The Administration argues that the EPA, powered by the Clean Air Act, should have the clear, final word on emissions. There are quite a few rebuttals to this argument, but there is one point of the Administration’s argument that bothers me in particular. Maybe maintaining the two-prong regulation scheme—EPA rules plus court-enforced nuisance law—leaves the door open for
ferring back to public opinion polls, a CBS News poll taken diof the Stimulus Plan but also in rectly after the healthcare bill’s the majority, they seem to have approval asked 858 interviewreceived most of the blame for ees whether they “approve or its enactment. disapprove of the new health care reform bill (signed into law The Healthcare Reform law that March 2010),” this poll showed was enacted on March 23, 2010 32percent approval and a sigfurther contributed to the shift nificant 53 percent disapproval. of public opinion with regard to incumbency and the support One may indeed find conclusive of Democrats in the 2010 elec- evidence in voters’ approval of tions. This law aims to expand Congress in general. Over the the healthcare coverage to 32 last year, poll numbers have million of uninsured Americans shown an increasing disapproval at the cost $940 billion over the of Congress since the springcourse of ten years. Just like the with the latest poll numbers Stimulus Plan, no Republican showing an average of a 21perrepresentative voted for this cent approval and a whopping bill and support came from the 73percent disapproval of Conmajority of the Democrats. Re- gress’ job performance. Given
some inconsistency between different states, but the EPA’s regulation alone hardly seems consistent! Recent presidents have gone back and forth, strengthening the EPA and weakening it; right now, the Republicans are hoping to curtail the EPA’s ability to regulate at all. One can imagine the pendulum swinging in the other direction with suddenly very strong EPA regulations. If Obama doesn’t want a company to worry about a “nasty” surprise in court, how is that different than a “nasty” surprise in federal regulations? Caroline Guerra is a senior majoring in political science and global studies.
the obvious unpopularity of recent passed legislations, and the natural tendency to blame the majority party, it is no surprise many voters are unhappy with the Democratic Party. It appears that in the recent election, the significant gains made by the Republicans were not a sign of support for the Republican agenda or a specific repudiation of the Left, but, more likely, a sign of dissatisfaction of government’s incumbency and politicians’ unwillingness to listen to their constituents’ primary concern: the economy. In other words,“It’s the economy, stupid.” Karina Ibrahim is a junior majoring in political science. December 2010 11
Domestic
Congress in Review
What has the 111th Congress Done for You?
Posted On Our Blog On Dec. 23, 2010 With the 111th Congress still in session but drawing to a close, it only seems time to look back and review the 111th Congress.What have they done? And, what’s more, are the people happy with the actions of Congress? According to Those Who Poll, the latest numbers indicate that Congressional approval is rocketing towards rock bottom. The latest Gallup poll indicates an 83% disapproval rating (a record low since Gallup first began tracking approval of Congress over 30 years ago), although the Real Clear Politics average is a slightly less stunning 74% disapproval rating with a 19.6% approval. The recent elections can also act as evidence towards the people’s dissatisfaction with Congress- the significant changes slated for Congress come January proof that many voters aren’t happy with the 111th Congress. Ignoring the approval of Congress, however, let’s look at what Congress has done these past two years. This is particularly pertinent as Congress rushes to vote on legislation before the 2010 session closes. Congress has passed significant legislation in the past two years, including: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (commonly referred to as the Stimulus or Recovery Act). While you have likely heard of this, let’s summarize quickly. Written in adherence to the Keynesian economic ideology, the Stimulus Bill included federal tax incentives, an expansion of unemployment benefits, as well as an increase in domestic spending in education, health care, even infrastructure. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. This piece of legislation included HEARTH (Home-
12 The Hill
less Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing) which reauthorized the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD’s Homeless Assistance programs. Furthermore, this act expanded eligibility for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, expanded the HOPE for Homeowners program, and extended the increase for FDIC and NCUA deposit insurance limits until December 31, 2013. The Credit CARD Act of 2009. This act was passed in hopes ”…to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.” This bill was introduced during the 110th Congress and passed overwhelmingly in the House, but was never given a vote in the Senate. The act passed with bipartisan support early during the reign of the 111th Congress in 2009 and contained provisions to protect cardholders in a world which is increasingly relying on credit cards. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (which included the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act). Another piece of legislation you may have heard of…something to do with reforming health care and student loan debt. Both a piece of historic legislation in the U.S. and a complicated tale, so let’s not discuss it any further here. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Passed in response to the recession as “A bill to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end “too big to fail”, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.”
The SPEECH Act of 2010. Less discussed in popular media than the aforementioned pieces of legislation but still noteworthy, the SPEECH Act made foreign libel judgments unenforceable in the United States unless compliant with the First Amendment. Important for truth seeking American journalists working around the world and the average citizen abroad, this piece of legislation is another step in protecting the rights of Americans- no matter how far from home they are. This list, of course, merely contains the legislation which has lauded more media attention and excludes other legislation passed (and all legislation failed) over the past two years as well as Congress’s recent actions as they’ve rushed to vote before the 111th Congress makes its final vote to close. So yes, the 111th Congress is not popular amongst the people. Perhaps the 112th Congress will be more popular, at least at first, after all- does each Congress and every politician not decline in popularity to some extent while reigning? This, however, is not really the point. The real point is this: even though Congress is not always popular, that does not mean it doesn’t do anything (as seems to be the number one complaint from the Average Joe). Perhaps Congress has its moments of unproductivity, but it seems as though they‘re able to accomplish some things. Now whether or not the legislation Congress passes is for the good of our nation or not, that’s for you to decide. Remember, we’re nonpartisan. Sarah Wentz is a sophomore majoring in political science and global studies.
Quotes Christine O’Donnell to fellow Republican candidates: “Dorm life has evolved into a blending of the sexes, from coed buildings to coed floors, coed bathrooms and now even coed rooms. What’s next? Orgy rooms? Menage a trois rooms?”
2010
of
Sarah Palin discussing North Korea and South Korea on Glenn Beck’s radio show: “This speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But obviously we’ve gotta stand with our North Korean allies.”
Domestic Sharron Angle, Senatorial candidate from Nevada, said in a speech to a Hispanic students: “So that’s what we want is a secure and sovereign nation and, you know, I don’t know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me.”
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said of Arizona’s immigration law in his speech at Emory University: “I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend, but with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me.”
President Obama said during his visit to New Orleans to observe the fifth year since Hurricane Katrina: “I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” Joe Biden introducing Irish At the signing of the health-care reform bill, Vice President Joe Bidden noted to President Barack Obama: “This is a big f**king deal.”
Prime Minister Brian Cowen, in March 2010: “His mom lived in Long Island for 10 years or so. God rest her soul. And -- although, she’s -- wait -- your mom’s still -your mom’s still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.”
Christine O’Donnell to opponent Chris Coons, both of whom were running for seats in the Senate: “You’re just jealous that you weren’t Rachelle Branca is a junior magoron Saturday Night Live!” ing in editing and graphic design.
December 2010 13
International
Sometimes our staffers respectfully disagree. In September, two of our staffers engaged in a lively debate over the U.S.’s policy regarding Israel & Palestine. Obama’s Exceedingly Polite Request Posted September 24, 2010 Barack Obama’s administration has determinedly walked into the foreign policy swamp known as the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Their trudging has resulted in positive, if not exactly grand, progress. For the first time since Operation Cast Lead – Israel’s questionable military excursion into Gaza during the summer of 2008 – both sides are at the same table. A two-state solution will not come over night; right now, certain concessions must be made for the talks to even get into the nitty-gritty. I will not address the Israel-Palestine conflict in its entirety; to do so would require the composition of three to four books, and even with that, where to begin? Isaac and Ishmael? Instead, I will comment on the point of contention for this go-round. A number of hyper-religious/nationalist Israeli citizens continue to build homes and neighborhoods which encroach on Palestinian lands. It’s a kind of twenty-first century manifest destiny, except this time the settlers have actual Biblical quotes to back up their claims (instead of, ya know, having to change “Israelites” to “American pioneers,” and “Canaanites” to “Indians”). A number of hyper-religious/nationalist Palestinians will likely respond with violence if this process continues. Palestinian authorities have threatened to walk away from negotiations if Sept. 26 passes and the Israeli government does not extend its moratorium on settlement construction. This is a nobrainer for all parties involved (which means it could very well be disregarded). The current President of the Palestinian Au-
14 The Hill
thority (PA) is Mahmoud Abbas, from the Fatah party. While the political leanings of he and his party may not be kosher to some Americans and Israelis, Prime Minister Netanyahu (of Israel) and Secretary of State Clinton would much rather negotiate with him than his political opponents, members of Hamas (an extremist sect-turned-political party which now has a majority in the legislature of the Palestinian Authority). Other than for the sake of continuing negotiations, Abbas must secure this concession to maintain credibility at home. Netanyahu, already on the right-wing of Israeli politics, may find it difficult to talk to a Hamas PA President who refuses to recognize Israel’s existence. And then there’s poor President Obama, stuck in the middle. It’s hard to be perceived as an impartial mediator while the U.S. government is giving billions in military aid to Israel every year. But even then, it should be a simple matter to stop these settlements, correct? President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are just asking, ever so nicely, for this one tiny concession (you will never hear from a high-ranking U.S. official that, say, the U.N. deems these settlements illegal under international law). But Benjamin Netanyahu, unfortunately, cannot publicly comply. Not when he has a determined base to keep sedated, and not when his excitable Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, wants to keep the settlements growing. This makes sense, as FM Lieberman lives in a settlement which would likely be eliminated under any peace plan. So President Obama, the leader of a U.S. government which bankrolls a portion of Israel’s defense, must resort to asking, ever-sopolitely, if PM Netanyahu would
please, oh-just-this-once, extend the moratorium on settlement construction. This appears to be a game of diplomatic chicken. I hope, for the sake of a budding twostate solution, that Israel blinks first. Is this to say that Palestine doesn’t have work to do on its own end? Of course not. But such a fundamentally reasonable request should be granted if the most basic of talks are to continue. ERIC EIKENBERRY It’s Not That Simple Posted September 27, 2010 I wanted to offer a quick reply to Eric Eikenberry’s post on the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Eric has all the facts right, and his desire to see the settlements stop is a worthy one, but the picture is more complicated than he suggests. If my reading is correct, Eric believes that the generous military aid Israel receives from the United States should be adequate leverage for President Obama to demand the demolition of the West Bank settlements. Unfortunately, threatening to reduce or withhold military assistance to Israel is not a credible option. The Israeli Defense Force is a wedge against potential regional aggressors such as Iran and Syria, and emasculating it would leave a power vacuum in the Middle East–a vacuum likely to be filled by a belligerent theocracy. Because the US must continue guaranteeing Israel’s military strength to ensure regional stability, President Obama’s only option is diplomatic pressure designed to bring reciprocal concessions from both sides. Moreover, even though American taxpayers underwrite Israel’s military power, Israel is not an American client state. It is an independent democracy with com-
plex domestic politics. Although we would prefer settlement construction stopped and the current developments torn down, as Eric notes the coalition currently in control of the Knesset believes strongly in the settlements and would prefer not to see its constituents’ homes destroyed. More troublingly, the IDF is increasingly staffed by Ultra-Orthodox citizens whose views are more hard-line than those of any other Israelis. Internal politics regarding the settlements is volatile, and America needs to be gentle when making demands. U.S. Administration has to put American interests first, of course, but the desires of important Israeli constituencies must be kept in mind. The settlements are the tipping point of any potential peace deal, and all sides have important interests that must be resolved through the hard work of diplomacy rather than flash-bang demands to Stop the Settlements Now. ALEX JONES For Clarification Alex brings up several interesting points, and in hindsight, I feel as if I could have been clearer in my reasoning, so please allow me to elaborate now. 1. To begin, I am not in favor of withholding monetary support from Israel, and did not mean to imply that. For me, it’s just one of those “hmm, isn’t that interesting,” facts of which I’m not sure a majority are aware. Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East, and it’s scientific and infrastructural achievements t rival those of the United States. Yes, it does provide a bulwark against an Iran that is rapidly expanding its regional influence. 2. A Palestinian’s view of U.S. involvement. If I’m a Palestinian living in Gaza whose home was destroyed during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, how would I feel about the U.S. as a broker if there’s
a good possibility that the rocket which leveled my home was manufactured in America or was bought with American dollars? President Obama, like his predecessors, has found himself in an interesting position, attempting to situate himself and his administration as impartial arbiters while favoring one side overwhelmingly. Is this to say that they should withhold support? No. It’s just one of the ironies of the debate. 3. An Israeli’s view of U.S. involvement. The Obama Administration has not threatened to withhold monetary or other aid, and has maintained the U.S.’ policy of generous support. Despite this, however, he is viewed with suspicion among Israel’s political elite. Jeffrey Goldberg, a columnist for the Atlantic who has extensive personal and political connections within Israel, wrote the following in a piece that appeared in the September issue of The Atlantic: “On my last visit to Israel, I was asked almost a dozen times by senior officials and retired generals if I could explain Barack Obama and his feelings about Israel. Several officials even asked if I considered Obama to be an anti-Semite” As for Israel being a “client state,” I wholeheartedly agree that Israel should exercise its independence in making decisions. But the U.S., however, does not have to support Israel unquestioningly, as it so often has. Right now, in my view, the U.S. treats Israel as a kid brother, something to be protected not only from harm, but from criticism. We are constantly going to bat for Israel on the international stage. From 1972 to 2006, the U.S. used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to shoot down Resolutions critical of Israel no less than forty-two times. That’s not to mention the silence surrounding Israel’s unofficial nuclear weapons’ capability. Given all of that, I don’t see President Obama’s request as a “flash-
International bang demand.” Settlement construction has already been frozen for months; this issue has been debated in the halls of Washington D.C. and Jerusalem ever since. And though we do not in any way own Israel, it is naïve to think that respect amongst allies is unconditional, that talks between friends do not involve an implicit quid pro quo. Which is why I was disappointed when the moratoriumwas not continued. Netanyahu chose nationalistic sentiment over what, in my opinion, would be responsible governance. I may be wrong in thinking this, but sometimes attempts by Israel’s hardliners to show independence come off as a thumbed-nose toward her strongest, most consistent ally. I fear the day when we are not allowed to express disappointment with our allies. ERIC EIKENBERRY For Clarification Eric, I appreciate your response. Your argument is nicely constructed and each point is well-taken. I will address your concerns in order. 1. I understand. Your point was not that we should withdraw support, but rather that our generous aid to Israel provides us leverage in negotiations with them. This is clear, and I would argue that we have done so over the last 60 years. Last year, for example, President Obama was able to convince Prime Minister Netanyahu to freeze settlement construction for 10 months despite Likud’s aversion to this policy. We have nudged Israel toward our preferred policy objectives numerous times. Nevertheless, we should not lament Israel’s military strength. To maintain the balance of power in the Middle East with a weaker IDF would either require continued on page 19 ...
December 2010 15
International
Border Dispute Created by Google Posted On Our Blog On Nov. 18, 2010 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 new Google Car (make sure you check out our November issue for more on that!), as well as the ever so popular Google Maps.
teresting about this issue, however. It is the way Nicaragua has defended themselves against the accusations of conquest. In an “after-the-fact justification” of the so-called invasion, Nicaragua cited Google Maps, whose version of the map suggested the territory belonged to Nicaragua. Google, however, has since changed the map to be in accordance with the 2009 decision on the matter by The International Court of Justice. This issue is rather complex, so we shall ignore all the technicalities of whom the territory actually belongs to, the validity It is the Google Maps feature, of Google Maps, and even the typically used to provide local environmental issues wedged directions, that has caused the in this conflict. We will leave the recent “border crisis” between Organization of American States Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The (OAS), to whom Costa Rica has border dispute is over an area already submitted an appeal for along the San Juan River, and judgment, to decide the matter. the conflict is a product of the Instead, we shall look at the role dredging operation Nicaragua that Google has played. has undertaken in the river. The troubles first began when When you examine the issue Costa Rica accused Nicaragua from a distance, it seems absurd of dumping sediment from the that a tool from an online webproject on its territory (which site (even a website as monoliththe Nicaraguan government de- ic as Google) could be used as nies). a defense for what could eventually be ruled an invasion and In addition to the sediment what could have easily sparked dumping, Costa Rica claims that armed conflict if Costa Rica had Nicaragua is clearing a protect- a military.What is, perhaps, even ed Costa Rican forest, and that more absurd is that this is not the Nicaragua has taken down the first time this year that Google’s Costa Rican flag on the disputed Maps function has brought fury territory and replaced it with the from communities around the Nicaraguan flag. Having abol- world. Earlier this year, Camboished its military after a civil war dia criticized the company for in 1948 that left over 2,000 dead, displaying what they claimed Costa Rica is hardly equipped to was a “radically misleading” respond with force- and it would border between Cambodia and be easy for Nicaragua to take Thailand. Residents of Sunrise, advantage of the situation. Florida also directed their ire towards the California based comIt is not, however, Costa Rica’s pany earlier this year, after they lack of an army that is truly in- were literally erased off the map. 16 The Hill
Sunrise’s mayor claimed Google has made this error three times now, and it appears this latest time Sunrise remained off the grid (quite literally) for a month. So what does all this mean? Perhaps nothing beyond a lesson of “be careful what you believe” and “double check everything you see on the internet.” It also, however, seems to show exactly how much today’s society relies on the internet. And, perhaps even more frighteningly, how much faith people all around the world put in Google. It appears that Google may have more power than we previously believed. After all, how many companies have the ability to provoke international war, to distribute land amongst countries (however legitimately it is given), or to erase any existence of communities on the map? While Google Maps is by no means official, it is regarded as such, and the fact that it can beget an international crisis is, without a doubt, cause for concern. That being said, we have to admit there is something humorous about “Google said so” being the trump argument in high-level negotiations between heads of state in a border dispute. Sarah Wentz is a sophomore majoring in political science and global studies.
Please, Never Forget Originally, I was going to title this post “Never Forget,” and launch into a Red Bull-fueled, needlessly derisive diatribe against certain elements of our foreign policy with which I strongly disagree, but I checked myself; sarcasm is much too cheap for this topic. Still, when discussing 9/11, WWII, even the Alamo, we are admonished to “Never Forget.” Yet here we are, eight years into an ongoing war, and hardly anybody remembers.When reminded that we still have thousands of soldiers stationed in Iraq (don’t worry, they’re the “non-combat” type), some state that we’ve already won. As if a war, fought amongst dueling insurgencies after its first year, which made no progress towards resolving deep-seated factional hatred, can be “won” in the conventional, triumphant sense.
tional black mark? Why recall that less than awe-inspiring moment? Why recall the initial justification for war? In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the emphasis shifted onto nobler ground. When the U.S. did not recover WMDs, it was decided by administration and media alike that we were toppling a sadistic dictator and spreading democracy. The fear of Saddam’s WMD became just one of many reasons why we imposed democracy from the top down. Who, living comfortably (and forgetfully) in 2011 can remember the heady days when Tony Blair intoned that the Iraqi regime could launch a WMD within forty-five minutes of an order from the top? Or when Condoleezza Rice gesticulated about mushroom clouds?
I hope that the revisionist history forgives me, but, to hell with deI’m prompted to write this by the mocracy; our military invaded in recently broken news that one 2003, with public support, beRafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, cause of an awful mixture: fear, codenamed “Curveball” by U.S. with just enough bombastic naand German intelligence ser- tionalism to make the medicine vices, admitted that he knowing- go down smooth. ly provided faulty intelligence which was subsequently used Men like al-Janabi helped the to justify the war. Al-Janabi says: previous administration build this fear with one poorly-supI had the chance to fabricate ported, vaguely scary assertion something to topple the re- on top of another. But it’s admisgime. I and my sons are proud sions like this that help cool my of that and we are proud that once boiling anger at the Bush we were the reason to give administration over this historic Iraq the margin of democracy. blunder.Yes, President Bush, his cabinet, and his national secuRemember when Colin Powell, rity apparatus actively desired former Chairman of the Joint and proactively sought ways to Chiefs and, at the dawn of the justify this war, and engaged in Iraq War, Secretary of State, dangerous, damaging groupwarned the U.N., aided with think. But recent information slides and everything, that Sad- shows that they didn’t actively dam Hussein was developing deceive the public as I believed biological weapons in roving they once did. Al-Janabi proves laboratories? I’d bet that’s a little that they were themselves dehazy. Well that presentation was ceived. based off of “Curveball’s” intelligence. But what’s one interna- In a month, the news media will
International
take a day or so to sermonize on the eighth anniversary of the last war. Few will take time to discuss the WMD debacle. That is old stuff, better forgotten. Instead, they will focus on how we deposed a murderous dictator (an act which, taken by itself, is an unequivocal good). Conservatives will discuss The Surge of 2007 and celebrate how brute force swung the fight in our favor (a questionable claim better challenged in a separate post). Others will analyze Iraq’s current veneer of stability. They may (and I emphasize may) recall the Sunni-Shia civil war, the violence and destruction which resulted in segregated neighborhoods and a fearful populace. They won’t voice this sentiment (taken from an excellent 2003 post by the Cogent Provocateur. I found it, however, through Balloon-Juice, a refreshingly blunt left-of-center blog): We were deep in the grip of war fever, and flashing neon warning signs of cooked intelligence went by the boards. Jane’s Defence Weekly (200303-05) diagnosed a case of “incestuous amplification ... where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation”. Miscalculation is an understatement. But I suppose we won. The Iraq War began in March, but pre-war fever peaked in February of that year. So, Happy Eighth Anniversary. And, no matter what your views on the war, don’t forget it. Eric Eikenberry is a first-year majoring in pollitical science. December 2010 17
International
So About That Whole Wikileaks Thing... Bipartisan consensus (hooray for bipartisanship! Oh how we love empty buzz words!) has it that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a “high-tech terrorist”. If both Vice President Biden and Senate Minority (soon to be Majority) Leader Mitch McConnell agree so concretely, then the issue is settled, case closed. Include that blonde Australian with the likes of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Ayyub al-Masri in the big book of People We Need to Kill.
blogging about a subject that has been in the news for a month is not “immediate coverage,” forgive me) is that, despite the conventional wisdom, Assange has not committed a crime.
dubious sense, and even then, the attempt at litigation would probably end in failure.
I’m addressing this issue because in private conversation, those I’ve The Washington Post article to talked with who express contempt which I linked in the previous for both Wikileaks and its very paragraph lays out Assange’s le- public operator are convinced gal situation (the article is a little that Assange has committed a outdated, as Assange is no longer bevy of crimes. It is my highly in hiding). Anyway, it is not illegal unprofessional opinion (oh, to for a non-government entity to be a college undergrad) that he disclose classified information. has not committed one. AccusOr don’t? Assange has published The New York Times and other ing someone of criminal activity several thousand diplomatic ca- major media outlets do it con- is the easiest way to shut down bles containing sensitive informa- stantly (ever read an article deal- debate, to score points for one’s tion (though none were classified ing with sensitive foreign policy prejudices at the expense of a as “top secret”). The merits of his issues which heavily quotes anon- complex and needed conversaactions – best viewed through a ymous sources?). The 1917 Es- tion. To argue that he has harmed prism of vital transparency versus pionage Act could provide cover national interests is totally fair; to national/governmental interests – for a Justice Department acting say that he should be put behind are best debated in another post on the behalf of an embarrassed bars (or “hunted down”) is not. (which I may or may not write, administration desperate to ardepending on what happens this rest America’s most hated Austra- Eric Eikenberry is a first-year maNew Year’s Eve). What should be lian. But the World War I era law joring in political science. pointed out immediately (and yes, is constitutional in only the most
Who is Julian Assange? If all the brows furrowed by Julian Assange were laid side-byside, they would equal any rippling cornfield in area. The pale Australian has been on television screens worldwide for weeks, yet he and his project remain opaque. In this post, I’ll communicate my thoughts about the Wikileaks founder. My perspective is limited by my perceptions, so I hope readers will contribute their views on the topic as well.
of Orwell’s 1984, working alone to subvert a superstructure of tyrants. To understand his crusade, we should ponder the crusader. Who, or what, is Julian Assange? Is he a journalist? Yes, says the European far left, soothed by the thought of the CIA crushing the free press. Is he a saboteur? Yes, and he should be tried for “treason!” thunders Senator Joseph Lieberman. Is he a cyber-terrorist? YES! cries Sarah Palin, demanding President Obama to assassinate Wikileaks is Assange’s personal him. These responses may reveal crusade. He is not an instrument various character flaws in their elof any larger organization, nor ocutionists (and insight into their is he the standard-bearer for a minds at the very least), but they movement of likeminded people. won’t help anyone understand Assange sees himself as Winston Assange. If I may offer my own 18 The Hill
answers: no, yes, and maybe. Assange is not a journalist. Journalists scrutinize institutions and communicate information that will help people hold those who exercise power accountable to the public’s will. Whatever the effect on the policy’s efficacy, Assange’s exposure of our covert war in Yemen will now factor into the public’s assessment of the War on Terror. The hawks don’t like it, but the exposé was a public service. If Assange had revealed only subterfuge such as this, he could claim the title “journalist.” Alas, most of the documents in his “dumps” are transcripts of diplomatic gossip, useless to would-be watchdogs.
He blasted these archives onto the web to cripple “corrupt and secretive organizations” in his words. He doesn’t want to cleanse institutions; he wants to demolish them. He’s not a journalist; he’s a zealot. Assange’s zest, as I have noted, is devoted to blowing up the foundations underneath “authoritarian institutions” like the US Department of State. The State Department is oppressive, he reasons, because information is a universal good and anyone who limits access to data suppresses the natural human impulse to inquire. His rationale recalls the 1990’s notion that “information wants to be free” and is not entirely unreasonable. The principle of free information was literally written into law by continued from page 15 ... a considerably larger US military footprint or more involvement from states like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, whose leaders are more illiberal than any Likudnik. Granting Israel some freedom of action, is frustrating but ultimately beneficial. 2. President Obama has taken on a more conciliatory tone toward Palestinians and the Arab world generally, to great benefit for regional peace. He has not, however, positioned himself as a neutral arbitrator in practice. He has refused to move toward diplomatically recognizing Hamas. Doing so would defy the wishes of the Israeli leadership but would improve the prospects of long-term peace by demonstrating that the US will respect democratic decisions on both sides. It would also slow the movement within Gaza toward even more extreme politics. The Administration has been rather short-sighted in refusing to address the issue and certainly has not backed away from favoring Israel vis-à-vis Palestine.
International the Freedom of Information of ses will be resolved by war—and Act. Unfortunately for Assange, the censor’s hand is always heaviany first-year student in political est during times of conflict. theory could invalidate his reasoning by pointing out that with- The irony is satisfying, but what out a state to protect individuals if it happens? What if Wikileaksfrom coercion; the freedom to style document dumps continue seek information is swallowed in for years, the ties between diploa vortex of violence and disorder. mats loosen and foreign ministries Targeting diplomatic institutions draw back from close collaborais especially likely to set off free- tion? Then, if a crisis arises—an dom-shredding chaos. Diplomats epidemic, a transnational wave of have always relied upon secrecy terrorist attacks, anything—and to practice their craft. The water diplomats act slowly to avoid a that gushed from the fountains of web-driven backlash, Assange Renaissance palaces was meant will have endangered many lives. to keep statesmen’s discussions But of course, revolution is always private. And as former Assistant risky. Secretary of State James Rubin has noted, if diplomats lose their mu- Alex Jones is a sophomore matual trust out of fear that their com- joring in business and political ments will end up on the internet, science. more and more international criThe United States has vetoed numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel. A close examination of the document Eric presents will show that many of these resolutions were sponsored by neighboring countries who have been hostile the existence of the Jewish State and that, while the US often cast the veto vote, 3-4 other liberal democracies on the Security Council abstained. The vetoes, then, were not unilateral actions to shield Israel. Furthermore, the policy of deferring to Israel’s every move is not a long-standing one, as Eric seems to imply. The US actually sided against Israel during the Suez Crisis in 1956, and even super-hawk Ronald Reagan harshly criticized the state for occupying Lebanon in 1982 and interfering with American plans to sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. We have not always treated Israel like a “kid-brother.” Finally, the policy of opacity regarding Israel’s nuclear program is designed to minimize the threat that the weapons would be used and keep regional electorates from demand-
ing that their governments initiate an arms race. One could argue this policy should change, but it is based on the consent of both the US and regional powers. To be clear, a “flash-bang demand” would be a threat to radically shift US policy towards Israel unless the settlements are ended. I understand now that this is not what Eric is advocating. The story of US-Israel relations– and the current dilemma–is nuanced and must be treated carefully on an issue-by-issue basis. US support for Israeli decisions has not been monolithic, nor should it be. Our policy should be re-calibrated on many issues, but these choices must be made with an appreciation of the situation’s complexity. It has been a pleasure to participate in this debate, and I look forward to hearing what Eric thinks about my post on Israel-Iran tensions. Alex Jones is a sophomore majoring in buisiness and plitical science. December 2010 19
The Last Word
“The Scars of Centuries*” Racial Politics in the South A few months ago, I took a trip to the coast. On the highway, I was caught behind a truck bearing a Rebel-Flag decal. The sticker announced that this crimson standard represents “Heritage, not Hate.” In his whimsical moments, I thought, the driver probably imagines “pastoral scenes of the gallant South.” I presume his gold-dipped reveries don’t feature Abel Meeropol’s further description of a “strange fruit” with “bulging eyes and [a] twisted mouth” danglling from the motorist’s beloved magnolia trees. After fifteen minutes stuck behind this man,I came to assume he thought he was carrying on a tradition of “defiance” by displaying the Stars and Bars. I hoped he didn’t know that Southern disobedience took the form of regular raids of murderous terror, conducted by men clad in the masked mantles now favored by Hezbollah. Progressives like me have devoted ourselves to repudiating this legacy of terror. At best, my reactionary roadmate has chosen to ignore the backs once broken and the necks once snapped on his inherited land. As my encounter on the interstate showed, after four decades of efforts to counter the mythology of the “Lost Cause,” some white Southern-
ers still refuse to confront the region’s ugly racial history. Educators keep struggling to correct Southern misconceptions, because people who are ignorant of their own history are intellectually impoverished. But after thirty years of electoral losses in the region, some progressive political advocates are asking whether the South is fit for social justice. I was in South Carolina when I pondered this question for the first time. A friend and I were canvassing a rural town for the Barack Obama campaign.We drove from home to home, counseling registered Democrats to go to the polls and color in the circle beside Obama’s name. My friend and I pulled beside a one-story ranch. The owner, a registered Democrat, met us in his front yard. We explained who we were and asked him for whom he planned to vote. Keeping his eyes on his border collie, he murmured that he didn’t believe “colored people” were “ready for elected office.” African-Americans, he said, couldn’t even maintain their own properties—so how could he trust them to steward the nation’s government? We scratched his name off the list, assuming he hadn’t bothered to change his registration after the Democrats ceased being the “Party of Jim Crow.”
How many Southern Democrats are like this man? It’s hard to know, but given that some exist, a progressive movment in the South seems even less likely than it would otherwise be. Nonetheless, progressives from C. Vann Woodward to Harvey Gantt have dreamt of fashioning a Southern populist coalition of poor whites and poor blacks. Every indicator of collective welfare, from per-capita income to public health, places the South at the bottom of the national distribution. Wouldbe populists believe working-class southerners ought to link arms and push their interests relative to those of other tranches of America. On the way to the coast, I saw evidence of this proposal’s appeal as well as of its improbability. Passing the soybean fields and driving though the many country towns, I saw people living in crumbling shacks and weather-beaten mobile homes. I watched people tread around rusting slabs of metal that neither the government nor the corporate farms had bothered to extract from the fields. On Sunday, I saw people filing into churches to get spiritual relief from their poverty. The queues consisted of either black or white worshippers. Not a single church I passed was integrated. By and large, the institutions
*The title comes from President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965
20 The Hill
The Last Word
of the southern working class remain racially split.Workingclass blacks and workingclass whites seldom interact anywhere but at work. Given their lack of contact, it’s not surprising that they don’t see their interests as congruent, or even compatible. Their organizations don’t rely upon each other to build social capital, and sometimes the relationship of black and white instiutions is adversarial. As V. O. Key argues in his classic book Southern Politics in State and Nation, southern whites tend to become more conservative as surrounding black
populations become more concentrated. White racism helps guide that dynamic, as does whites’ historical perception that the uplift of African-Americans will always pull them down in the social hierarchy.
Southern workplaces almost impossible to organize. Progressives will have to find other means to catylize interracial collaboration if they ever want the South to be just. Strolling to the beach, I saw a few white children and a few black children riding their bikes through a yard. I grinned. Progress, I thought, begins at the grassroots.
Unless white and black institutions collaborate more extensively, the Southern working class is likely to remain split and subjugated. New economic organizations like Alex Jones is a sophomore malabor unions would help push joring in business and political the fractured racial rock faces science. back together, but Right-toWork statutes make make
WORK FOR THE HILL! Do you enjoy: a) writing b) blogging c) copy-editing d) design e) drawing f) one or more of the above?
Email us at: thehilpr@gmail.com to find out more about us and join our staff.
December 2010 21