The Hill
March/April 2012
Volume XI, Issue V
Chapel Hill Political Review
Interest Politics Interest Groups & the 2012 Presidential Election
The Effect of PACs Religion in the GOP Primary Feminism & the Election The Role of the “Jewish Interest”
From the Editor
To our readers: Every time the staff sits down to create pagination for the latest issue, we ask ourselves one question “What’s happening in the world?” We wonder what people are talking about, we list what stories stick out at us, and we search for themes. In an election year such as this, we aim to look at stories behind the stories, and the trends we find are sometimes surprising and at others exactly what one would expect. And in the first presidential election since the rendering of Citizens United, we found that the role of interest groups was an issue with much to be explored. In this issue, we focus on the role of “interest politics” and how interest groups are playing a role in the presidential election. We examine Political Action Committees and their role in financing presidential campaigns. We study the role of religion in the GOP primary, and we discuss how women’s rights and feminism are playing into electoral debates and issues. We even examine the influence of AIPAC and the Jewish population in an editorial about Israel, Israeli interests, and
the role they play in campaign politics. We also, of course, study issues on the international stage. We discuss the new leadership in North Korea and its potential impacts. We investigate the potential for India to rise to superpower status. We ruminate on the situation in South Sudan, and we explain how Syria’s Bashir al-Assad has resisted the fate of Mubarak, Ben Ali, Gaddafi, and Saleh. And we examine Putin’s reelection and the potential for revolution in Russia. As always, we’d like to thank you for picking up this issue of The Hill. And as this is our final printed issue of the academic year, we encourage you to keep an eye on our website for new material. Sarah Wentz & Siddarth Nagaraj
thehillpr@gmail.com http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill We’re proud to share our work with you, and we http://chapelhillpoliticalreview.wordpress.com invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send 208 Frank Porter Graham Student Union us a letter or email (no more than 250 words, UNC-CH Campus Box 5210 please) and tell us what you think. Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210 Send us your comments!
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 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 EDITORS Siddarth Nagaraj Sarah Wentz SECTION EDITORS Sam Hobbs Alex Jones Radhika Kshatriya WRITERS Brendan Cooley Brian Godfrey Ian Helfrich Sam Hobbs Alex Jones Kerri Kearse Krishna Kollu Radhika Kshatriya Siddarth Nagaraj Ismaail Qaiyim Chris Smith Avani Uppalapati Sarah Wentz Richard Zheng BLOG EDITOR Eric Eikenberry DESIGN Ian Helfrich Jenna Jordan Radhika Kshatriya Sarah Wentz PHOTOGRAPHY Sarah Wentz ART Daniel Kolev Connor Sullivan TREASURER Christie Blazevich FACULTY ADVISOR Ferrel Guillory
This magazine was produced using Student Government funds at a cost of approximately $0.73 per issue.
Contents
Volume XI, Issue V March 2012
Contents Cover 10
Rise of the PACs
12
Religion & Politics
13
The Forbidden Word: Feminism
14
The Jewish Interest
The effect of the political action committees in today’s election
The role of religion in the GOP primary
Political discourse on “feminist” issues
The role of the Jewish community in pre-election politics
Features 5
The Arab Spring in Syria
6
Online Education 101
16
The Rise of Kim Jung-un
18
India as a Super Power
Syria’s al-Assad resists the Arab Spring
An examination of distance learning
What the new leadership means
India’s potential to join the big leagues
March/April 2012
3
Notes from The Hill
Hill-O-Meter
Who’s on top of the heap now? Who has fallen far? We track the up-andcomers and the down-and outs.
1
Mitt Romney
By Sarah Wentz
The “Stormin’ Mormon” of a different arena, Mitt Romney continues to prove to be the “candidate-to-beat” in the Republican primary. A clear leader in the delegate count as the month of March closes, and the projected winner of several key upcoming elections, Romney is holding strong, and appears to be the prime candidate for the Republican nomination. His advisers clearly agree, as the Romney campaign continues to target Obama rather than fellow conservative candidates.
2
Barack Obama
Though his prediction of the NCAA 2012 Champions proved as inaccurate as the previous two years, in the political arena, President Obama is faring well. Recent research and polls agree that were the election tomorrow, Obama would win, whether his candidate was Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul. As Obama balances campaigning and pushing measures favored by many and discredited by few, his campaign may yet pick up steam as it chugs along towards November.
3 Rick Santorum Rick Santorum: Distinctly trailing Romney in the tallies of Republican delegates (565256 at the end of March), Rick Santorum is treading water despite his recent victories in Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. With a recent flurry of not-so-positive press, the Santorum camp needs to regroup, rally, and redirect if they want to make it to the Republican National Convention. Because the assertion that candidates who “haven’t cursed out a New York Times reporter during the course of a campaign, [are not] really a Republican” falls short.
4 Newt Gingrich Newt Gingrich: Though his staff currently mourns their dearth of victories, Gingrich’s campaign offices remain open. With his prospects remaining low in the upcoming primaries, however, The Hill predicts the Gingrich campaign offices will be gathering dust by the time UNC seniors are celebrating graduation.
5 Ron Paul The-Candidate-Everyone-Forgot-About. Though one has to admire his long standing tradition of “Never Say Die,” we have to say- sometimes you just have to fold. And when you’re 1,130 delegates short of the Republican nomination, it seems time to bow out gracefully.
4
The Hill
Syria Resists Arab Spring
Update
By Richard Zheng
I
n the wake of the Arab Spring that erupted last year, hundreds of thousands of people have risen up in protests against oppressive and authoritarian regimes in the region. Governments have already been overthrown in many countries, including Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. However, after almost a year of protests and demonstrations, Syria has yet to join this list. Its authoritarian regime is still intact and continues to crack down on protests and attempts to crush the popular uprisings. So far, President Bashir Assad has managed to survive the Arab Spring because of Syria’s unique past as well as the structure of its ruling regime. When looking at reports from western journalists, it seems that the only ideals Syrians are fighting for are liberty and justice. However, this is an oversimplification of the situation, as the people have suffered more than just political slights over the past three decades. An important cause of the recent uprisings is rooted in the economic polarization of the population. When the Ba’ath Party first took over in the 1970s, it began as a left-wing socialist political organization deriving its support from the masses. During this period, the government provided subsidies and welfare for the poor, from subsidized healthcare to education to handouts for the struggling poor. Beginning in the 1980s, the party began to shift its policies in favor of big businesses and corporations. Once the government realized it only needed the support of the rich business class, its policies changed, the middle class dwindled, and the gap between the very rich and very poor widened. Thus, today, the people are not completely united in their cause against the current regime, as President Assad retains
an important cause of the recent uprisings is rooted in the economic polarization of the population the support of the rich, urban business class. Syria’s population is polarized not only economically, but socially as well. Unlike Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries, the people of Syria are not united by ethnicity or even religion. The majority of Syrians are Sunni Arabs (approximately 60 percent) but the rest of the population consists of mixed minorities. There are Christians, Jews, and Alawite Arabs, of which President Assad is a member. The protesters mainly consist of Sunni Arabs. In an interview with The Hill, Professor Bassam Haddad, director of Middle East Studies at George Mason University, explained that Christians in Syria support President Assad because they feel they would fare better under the current regime than a possible Islamist state. Due to this diversity in culture, the opposition to the ruling party in Syria is split and less consolidated than the populations that rose up in Egypt and Libya.
of the existence of politically autonomous groups outside the government. In Syria, the military is fused with the central government and the two stand as one organic entity, along with the media and state security forces. Because of this stable power structure, Syria openly attacked demonstrators early on with no fear of repercussion, and has been successful in forestalling regime change even after a year of protests. Ultimately, the scattered opposition has not yet been enough to overturn the government. The fragmented factions, including political protestors of the Syrian National Council as well as army defectors from the Free Syrian Army, must find some way of drawing in nonMuslim support and stand firm together in order to evolve from a small-scale rebellion to a true revolution. Only then will they be able to topple the powerfully entrenched Assad establishment. Richard Zheng is a first year majoring in business.
In contrast to the mixed and scattered diversity of the opposition, the authoritarian ruling class in Syria is cohesive and concentrated in its power and desire to preserve it. When comparing the Syrian government with those of pre-revolution Egypt and Tunisia, the top leadership in Syria has been much more successful in making a combined effort to stamp out the revolt. This differs from Egypt, where the military eventually asked Mubarak to step down after the continuing protests in Tahir Square. The Egyptian military was separate from the government, and was an example March/April 2012
5
Section Domestic
GOP Primary: By the Numbers The numbers don’t say everything, but they do provide some valuable insight into the race and candidates’ campaigns. This data is accurate through the end of March.
1 Mitt Romney
565
2 Rick Santorum
delegates
Number of states in which candidate won the majority
21
$74,053,708
total amount of funds raised through Feb. 29, 2012
$11,346,911
256
delegates
Number of states in which candidate won the majority
10
$15,621,893 total amount of funds raised through Feb. 29, 2012
$8,932,085
funds raised during February 2012
funds raised during February 2012
3 Newt Gingrich
141
4 Ron Paul
delegates
Number of states in which candidate won the majority
2
$20,719,137 total amount of funds raised through Feb. 29, 2012
$2,575,751 funds raised during February 2012
66
delegates
Number of states in which candidate won the majority
0
$34,133,951 total amount of funds raised through Feb. 29, 2012
$3,265,899 funds raised during February 2012
6
The Hill
Domestic
Distance Learning: New Opportunities By Alex Jones
T
hey call it distance learning for a reason. My high school health classroom spanned 5,000 square miles. The difference between that and Sanderson High’s ordinary classrooms—which took up a puny 500 feet—lay in something a fraction of a millimeter wide: the fiber optic. The internet has infinitely increased the space in which learning can happen. In this article, I’ll explain why I think distance learning is a promising new practice for the information age. Start with the economics. Education is getting too expensive. Economic theory predicts this will happen. According to Boydt’s “cost-disease” theory, as economies mature, consumers spend more of their money on services that are hard to provide in a more valuable way while using less labor. With its labor-intensive pedagogy, our education system is highly susceptible to the cost disease. In constant dollars, education spending per pupil rose from just of $6,000 to just under $10,000 between 1985 and 2007. In an age of government austerity, this is unacceptable. We must deliver education more efficiently. One way is to simply use less labor by putting courses online. Reduced labor costs are not the only benefit of putting public education online. Schools will be able to trim their workforces down to the most knowledgeable teachers and let them teach students everywhere. For example, the Florida Virtual School offers college-level math courses to students all across the state, not just wealthy places like Tampa. Distance learning is flexible in other ways, too. In addition to teaching classes differently, online programs can experiment with different definitions of education itself. Learning Counts, for instance, provides transferable col-
the internet has infinitely increased the space in which learning can happen lege credits in return for portfolios of relevant work experience. Critics of distance learning argue the quality of in-person instruction justifies higher costs. There is some evidence to support this proposition. A study by Teacher’s College at Columbia University found that, among 51,000 community college students in Washington State, “those with the most online credits were the least likely to graduate or transfer to a fouryear institution.” But programs in other states have yielded the opposite result. In 2002, Virginia Tech started offering introductory math classes in an online format. The VT students who took online courses completed their work faster and scored better on standardized exams than students who took the class in person. There is no reason distance learning must be less effective than classroom learning. Other criticisms carry even less weight. Academic traditionalists fret that putting classes online will accelerate the decline of the humanities. But the endless variety available among online courses can keep technical instruction from crowding out the liberal arts. For instance, the classicist Donald Kagan has made his lectures on the Peloponnesian War available for free on the internet. Some teachers’ advocates argue today’s pedagogy is timeless, but in fact the lecture format was only created 100 years ago. Finally, the most trenchant critics simply seem disgusted by the idea of students learning on a computer. One such critic, Hofstra University professor Laurie Friedrich, insists distance learning will leave students “sitting alone in isolate little rooms…thinking in a way that turns thought into nothing but
bits of information.” Ironically, she published this fluent Luddism on the very platform she abhors—the internet. Every wave of cultural change has transformed how we educate the young. Renaissance educators complimented the study of God with the study of man. Industrial societies placed thousands of students in rationally organized school systems. The information age is said to have made the world smaller; why not make our classrooms infinitely huge? Alex Jones is a sophomore majoring in public policy.
DIS LEA TANCE RNI NG
March/April 2012
7
Domestic
The Elephant in the Room:
GOP Emphasis Shifts to Social Issues By Brian Godfrey
T he new year has brought with it good news for the Obama campaign. Consumer confidence is up, the unemployment rate has fallen, and the DOW closed above 13,000 for the first time in four years. According to the Pew Research Center, rates of optimism about the national economy jumped in the first two months of this year to 44 percent, up from 28 percent as recently as December. The standard Republican critique of the past few years has been President Obama’s handling of the economy—but positive economic signs may be weakening this argument and causing the GOP’s political strategy to shift towards social issues. Alongside a divisive Republican nomination, these new indications of positive economic growth are changing the dynamics of the campaign.
The rise of Senator Rick Santorum in the Republican primary has brought with it a new focus on non-economic issues. At this stage in the race, a longtime socially conservative Santorum has successfully portrayed himself as the right’s alternative to Governor Mitt Romney. Calling himself a “full spectrum conservative”, the Pennsylvania Senator has a long record of stances against abortion, gay marriage and military service, illegal immigration, and climate change. Santorum’s claims that the president is pursuing a “war on religion” and pushing “a phony theology” have appealed to the Republican base and Tea Party voters. It can be argued that stalwart GOP opposition to the president’s social policies first emerged in the brutal fight over healthcare reform. But the past couple years have also seen Republican-controlled state legislatures in Arizona and Alabama enacting new immigration laws that are stricter than existing federal regulations. Several states, 8
The Hill
including North Carolina, have and will vote on constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. But it is the most recent controversy over the administration’s employer-provided birth control mandate that sparked a firestorm of opposition from the right. The Republican candidates for president were at the forefront of criticism against what they claim is Obama’s gross overreach into religious and private institutions. Though the administration later backed off the original mandate (calling for insurance companies to cover birth control instead) the themes of individual liberty, small
Republican discourse on social issues may help invigorate the base of the party and motivate conservative voters on Election Day, but a fixation on these concepts is potential political gambling. government, and social conservatism have remained. The Republican discourse on social issues may help invigorate the base of the party and motivate conservative voters on Election Day, but a fixation on these concepts is potential political gambling. The GOP risks seeming distant from economic concerns or alienating voters who disagree with divisive public issues. Gallup polling has found, unsurprisingly, that the economy is the paramount issue to voters. In addition, strong stances against contraception and abortion could isolate female voters. Indeed, incendiary comments from conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh have sparked outcries of a “war on women.” Meanwhile,
controversial immigration laws risk alienating Hispanics, who comprise a rapidly growing demographic. Some Republicans worry social conservatism pushes the party towards old, white, male supporters and may backfire when considering shifting American public opinion. House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has expressed concern over a preoccupation with divisive social issues and immigration, claiming that “it is important that voters see a Republican party that is inclusive and is not exclusive.” Of course, nothing is guaranteed in this volatile Republican primary or in the upcoming general election. The recent positive economic trends could still dip; skyrocketing gas prices, trouble in Iran, or economic fallout in Europe could cause the U.S. to dip back into recession. Dramatic change could still occur between now and November. There is still plenty of time for the Republicans to offer a convincing political alternative to a stagnant economy and an unpopular government under President Obama. Brian Godfrey is a sophomore majoring in political science and geography.
Domestic
A Shift in Stride
Same-Sex Marriage Across the States By Sarah Wentz
T hough legislation regarding rights often demonstrates an ebb
and flow, recent years have appeared to show more legal motions banning same-sex marriage than legislation granting or protecting it. Recently, however, it appears the tides have changed and more states are asserting the rights for samesex marriage than raising barriers. New York’s legislature passed a bill in June of 2011 which permitted same-sex marriages and took effect a month later. The neighboring state of New Jersey’s legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill just last month, but was vetoed by Governor Christie. And not too far away, Maryland passed a bill which will allow same-sex couples to begin marrying in 2013. And on the opposite coast, the state of Washington passed a measure legalizing same-sex marriage intended to go into effect in June of this year. Meanwhile, in California, though the situation still hangs in balance and marriages are not being performed, the most recent court decisions have ruled against the constitutionality of Proposition 8. This is not to suggest that there is currently a mass push towards provisions for same-sex marriage, nor is this an attempt to either laud or criticize such a movement. This is an attempt to sort through the issue as it stands and simplify it for understanding. Is support of samesex marriage a growing trend or a mere coincidence? And if there is a mass movement towards enacting same-sex marriage legislation, what is the impetus? Though we would hesitate to use the word “coincidence,” research indicates that the current legislative actions supporting same-sex marriage are more isolated incidents than indicators of a tidal wave about to cover the nation. For
just as there is a smattering of states allowing same-sex marriage, there are states taking measures to further prevent recognition of same-sex marriage or other unions one, even the states which passed the legislation with significant support have found counteractions to the legislation. The Maryland measure is facing threats of overturn with promises of a referendum on the November ballot. The Washington legislation is faced with opponents threatening overturn by referendum and initiative. Though support was strong enough to introduce and pass the measures, a reversal is by no means impossible in either state. Similarly, just as there is a smattering of states allowing same-sex marriage, there are states taking measures to further prevent recognition of same-sex marriage or other unions. The state of North Carolina, for example, is moving to completely solidify itself against the recognition of same-sex unions with a referendum slated for the May primary. Though the state has long born a statue prohibiting same-sex marriage and the recognition of such unions performed in other states, the constitutional amendment passed by the state legislature and scheduled for referendum would both ban same-sex marriage and same-sex unions. A constitutional ban was under consideration in Pennsylvania as well, but was recently pulled. Given the divisiveness of the issue, it is no shock that there does not seem to be a large trend of states passing legislation providing for recognition of same-sex marriages and unions. It is surprising that a number of states are passing legislation in such simultaneous succession. However, given the quick suc-
cession of legislation allowing for same-sex marriage in New England in late 2008 and early 2009 (with the states of Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire), the phenomenon is not without precedent. Though there is not an overwhelming shift in policy, it does appear that there is some movement towards the legalization of same-sex marriage across the nation. The practice has begun to spread beyond a small cluster of states, and though there are counter-measures being witnessed, a shift is definitely being observed. The response from those opposed to such legislative acts remains to be seen, but the two counter-motions will certainly provide intrigue in the political arena for some time to come. Sarah Wentz is a senior majoring in political science and global studies.
March/April 2012
9
Cover
The Rise of Super PACs
Political Action Committees in the 2012 Election
I
t has never been more true than during the 2012 presidential election that when it comes to politics, money talks. In fact, a Supreme Court ruling in 2010 asserted that money is a form of free speech, and therefore cannot be restricted as long as it is independent of a candidate’s campaign.
The Citizens United v. Fede r a l E l e ct i o n C o m m i s s i o n (FEC) case was monumental. It overturned years of cam-
By Sam Hobbs Citizens United decision legalized such activity and invited unions and corporations to partake. As a result, there was a proliferation of super PACs in the 2010-midterm elections and the trend is set to accelerate in this year’s election. In the Republican primary, each of the four remaining candidates has a super PAC and each of their super PACs has raised more money than their respective campaigns. The su-
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case... set a new precedent: corporations, unions and wealthy individuals are now able to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections through political action committees paign finance law passed after the Watergate scandal and set a new precedent: corporations, unions and wealthy individuals are now able to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections through political action committees, or PACs. Nominally, the PACs cannot coordinate with any party or candidate and instead advocate for issues; however, these distinctions have proven ambiguous. The idea of outside or independent spending is not new to American politics – recall the Swift Boat campaign from 2004 – but the Supreme Court greatly expanded its potential. While the FEC eventually fined the group behind the Swift Boat advertisements, the 10 The Hill
per PACs have made good use of their funds. In Iowa, Newt Gingrich credits Mitt Romney’s super PAC with scuttling his campaign, causing Gingrich to fall from front-runner to a distant third in a matter of days. Similarly, a $5 million donation to Gingrich’s super PAC is largely responsible for his dominate yet surprising victory
In a bow to the growing influence of super PACs, President Obama recently reversed his policy and embraced his super PAC, no longer discouraging outside spending on his behalf. Obama is a prodigious fundraiser and has so far raised twice as much money as Mitt Romney, the most well financed Republican challenger, but clearly feels that his campaign will not be able to keep up with the unrestricted fundraising of the Republican super PACs. The supporters of the Citizens United decision maintain that the ruling was a victory for free speech. In their view, any limits put on spending are an obstruction of open political dialogue. Furthermore, unfettered outside spending could level the playing field. They point out that incumbents usually have a fundraising advantage over their challenger, so outside groups could compensate for the insurgent party’s handicap. On the other hand, critics of the decision argue that the ruling allows corporate money to flood the political market-
critics of the decision argue that the ruling allows corporate money to flood the political marketplace and corrupt democracy in South Carolina. In short, super PACs have demonstrated their potential to change an election rapidly and decisively.
place and corrupt democracy. In particular, it gives undue influence to wealthy individuals. These critics ask, “How
Cover
can the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ survive when a single billionaire can spend tens of millions of dollars to influence
sity, remarked in an interview with The Hill on the potential consequences. According to Professor Fish, “the use of
the issue of whether or not super PACs are truly independent of the candidate they are supporting, as mandated by the Supreme Court an election?” For example, Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate, has contributed over $10 million to Gingrich’s super PAC, arguably keeping Gingrich’s candidacy alive single-handedly. Another criticism of the effect of super PACs on American politics is that they poison the political discussion. Candidates hesitate to run negative ads because of the potential for backlash from voters disgusted with cutthroat politics. However, super PACs are technically independent of the candidate, and, as expected, their ads are exceedingly negative. Peter Fish, a professor of political science at Duke Univer-
negative ads by super PACs in primaries, as opposed to the general election, has further polarized our politics. These outside groups demand party purity, and, as a result, moderate or independent thought will be left out.” There is also the issue of whether or not super PACs are truly independent of the candidate they are supporting, as mandated by the Supreme Court. The reality does not seem to match the spirit of the requirement. Most of the candidates’ super PACs are run by former staff from the campaign. Candidates can appear at fundraisers for their super PAC to help raise money. Candidates have even gone so far
as to make public what they would do if they could coordinate with their super PAC. This situation has attracted much ridicule, most notably from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. There is wide agreement among the American public that our campaign finance system needs reform, but it is not likely to happen. To overturn the Citizens United case, Congress and the states would have to pass a constitutional amendment – a virtually impossible feat in our political climate. Partisan gridlock has even paralyzed the FEC, which is partly why its enforcement of the independence of super PACs has been so weak. For better or for worse, super PACs have become a new facet in American politics, and they are here to stay. Sam Hobbs is a junior majoring in history.
Mix & Match
Can you match the candidates to their PAC?
The Candidates
The PACs
Newt Gingrich
Endorse Liberty
Mitt Romney
Priorities USA
Barack Obama
Red, White, and Blue Fund
Ron Paul
Restore Our Future
Rick Santorum
Winning Our Future March/April 2012
11
Cover Section
Religion in the Republican Race for the White House
T
By Chris Smith
he 2012 race for the White House was supposed to be about the economy; however, with the economy improving and the unemployment rate steadily falling, Republicans are looking for new ways in which to criticize the Obama administration. Foreign policy is also playing a smaller role in this election. The war in Iraq is over, and calls for leaving Afghanistan are growing stronger every day. Iran remains a major issue; however, war fatigue has set in for many Americans. What this means for the election is that religion and social issues are being pushed to the forefront. A new law recently signed by President Obama which requires religious organizations to cover contraception in their health insurance plans has been the catalyst for this issue resurgence. Republicans argue that this is an issue of religious freedom, while those who support the president argue that this is about women’s rights and reproductive freedom. All four of the remaining candidates (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul) have criticized the new law as an attack on religious freedom. Evangelicals have been the single most important constituency for the Republican Party ever since the emergence of the ‘Moral Majority’ in the 1980s. Many believe the evangelical vote to be the key factor in the elections of both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The campaigns of Reagan and Bush were able to rally evangelicals around their candidates. While religion remains an extremely important issue in the 2012 GOP nomination process, there does not seem to be that one candidate that inspires evangelicals. This is similar to the 2008 GOP race in which McCain had difficulty convincing evangelicals that he was a “true” conservative. The fact that social 12 The Hill
the 2012 race for the White House was supposed to be about the economy, however... religion and social issues are being pushed to the forefront conservatives were divided among several candidates was a key factor in McCain’s nomination. The exact same thing is occurring this electoral season. Evangelicals share a deep mistrust of Mitt Romney. Many pundits have attributed this to his Mormon faith. There is evidence that Romney’s religion could be hurting him among religious conservatives. A recent Gallup poll found that about 20 percent of Republicans and Independents stated that they would not vote for a Mormon. Surprisingly, that number jumps to 27 percent for Democrats. Mormonism alone, however, does not fully explain the lack of enthusiasm for Romney. Many conservatives point to Romney’s pro-choice stance while Governor of Massachusetts along with his personal statements about being “progressive” made while campaigning in the left-leaning state. Evangelicals have struggled so far to find an alternative to Mitt Romney, flirting with several candidates along the way. Rick Santorum was ultimately able to rally enough evangelicals to win Iowa. In South Carolina, evangelicals went heavily for Newt Gingrich. Rick Santorum’s success seems to be based mainly on his highly conservative social positions. The entrance/exit polls show that Santorum consistently wins among voters who say “abortion” is their most important issue. While Santorum is Catholic, his positions closely resemble those of many conservative evangelicals. How-
ever, Santorum’s positions are at odds with official Catholic positions in several areas. For example, the pope has acknowledged the need to address climate change while Santorum claims it is a hoax. If Romney is able to secure the nomination, there is a chance that evangelicals may not show up in large numbers for the general election in November. There is also the possibility that their disdain for Obama will ultimately trump their distrust of Romney. Ironically, Newt Gingrich has been able to convince many evangelicals in the South that he is their guy despite his past issues with marriage and his advocacy for addressing climate change. Religion will most likely be a major factor in this election; however, it remains to be seen what role the evangelical vote will play. Chris Smith is a senior majoring in global studies and religious studies.
“The ‘F’-Word” Women’s Rights 40 Years after the Women’s Movement
R
Section Cover
By Kerri Kearse
ecently, there have been heated conversations in Washington over women’s access to birth control and some new rules from the Pentagon that will ban women from fewer positions at the front lines of military combat. While all these debates over “the f-word” (a.k.a feminism) may just be another part of the 2012 campaign trail for President Obama and the remaining Republican candidates, it is interesting that these issues are now arising nearly 40 years after Roe vs. Wade and the climax of the Women’s Liberation Movement. The question becomes: what do the recent debates say about gender in 21st century America? The use of medical contraception in the United States has been legal since 1959 when President Eisenhower said in a press conference that it “is not a proper political or government activity or function or responsibility” to get involved in a woman’s access to birth control. However, the recent controversy is not about whether women should be able to access contraception, as was the debate in the 1970s. The current debate is centered on whether the federal government can mandate the complete coverage (with no co-pay to the patient) of medical contraception by insurance companies, with the exception of Catholic institutions. The general argument from conservatives is that the federal government should not have a say in telling insurance companies what they must cover, that this is another instance of government overstepping its bounds. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to argue that because birth control is used to treat a number of serious reproductive issues, there is a need to make contraception more accessible. What presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle are doing is
trying their hardest not to make this an issue of the f-word. Seeing as women are statistically more likely to vote in general elections than men, making this an issue over women’s reproductive rights would not be beneficial, especially for Republican candidates. Recent studies have shown that 98 percent of American women have used, or currently use, birth control, and if Democrats were to spin this debate saying that they are seeking to make women’s health care a higher priority by making birth control more accessible, the Republicans will be in a tough position come November. A military combat-exclusion act, passed in 1994, had officially banned women from many of the positions in the front-lines of the military. However, in the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a number of women have wound up serving temporarily on the ground as medics, radio operators, tank mechanics, and other specialized positions. The Pentagon has recently decided to continue the ban on women serving in combat tank units, infantry, and in Special Ops units, while opening up positions on battalions, allow women to serve full-time as radio operators, medics, tank mechanics, and many other ground positions. To many, this decision seems long overdue considering 144 women have already lost their lives while serving in combat positions, as well as the fact that several other militaries around the world (most notably Israel’s and Australia’s) either already send, or are in the process of incorporating, women into all aspects of their armed forces. The fact women are still excluded from many positions, however, makes
the change highly unsatisfactory. The other side of this debate is largely concerned with the emotions of soldiers in combat zones, and is best summed up by a comment made by Rick Santorum, “… The issue is -- and certainly one that has been talked about for a long, long time -- is how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, or potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.” Again, this is a debate that is never framed as being about women’s physical, emotional, or mental capabilities in combat situations. Much like the controversy over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the arguments used primarily focus on the morale of the troops and the necessity of “completing the mission.” All in all, we seem to have come to a point in American politics where no one, on either side of the aisle, wants to mention “the f-word.” No politician wants to come out and say “This is a debate about women’s rights and freedoms,” because there are women’s groups on both sides, and it is generally unwise to alienate more than half of your voting population. Kerri Kearse is a sophomore majoring in English and broadcast journalism.
we seem to have come to a point in American politics where no one, on either side of the aisle, wants to mention “the f-word.” March/April 2012
13
Cover
The Israel Lobby & American Politics
The Effect on Foreign Policy and the Race for President By Radhika Kshatriya
F or a number of decades now, a highly significant part of American Middle Eastern foreign policy has been its relationship with Israel. Israel is hailed as the most secure and democratic ally of the West in the region, and so stands as an essential part to the United States’ goals in the region, especially during the turmoil of the Arab Spring. The firm support Israel receives from the United States is bolstered by the loyal backing of many American Jewish organizations.
a liberal vision of Zionism. According to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) website, it is committed to an Israel which has “free speech and minority rights.” The Jewish organization Conference of Presidents states that “Israel and the United States share political, moral and intellectual values including democracy, freedom, security and peace.” These groups would never say that any group in Israel does not deserve the full rights of citizenship or protection of their human rights. But
the firm support Israel receives from the United States is bolstered by the loyal backing of many American Jewish organizations. These interest groups are made up of a diverse group of American Jews, and include members of different breeds of Zionism (which is the belief in the need for a Jewish homeland). Zionism is more prevalent and more extreme among Orthodox Jews, who adhere to the traditional interpretation and application of the laws of the Torah. Orthodox Jews currently make up about 13 percent of American Jews, and according to a 2006 AJC poll, only 25 percent of Orthodox Jewish Americans under the age of forty supports a Palestinian state, compared to 60 percent of younger, nonOrthodox Jewish Americans.
the fact remains that the majority of American Jewish institutions fail to challenge any of Israel’s behavior towards Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which serves as a de facto sanction of the human rights violations in the area. And so, in the American Jewish establishment, the liberal
Their children, however, don’t have such memories; they oppose a state where Jews enjoy their full rights of citizenship but Palestinians are marginalized. And such violations show no signs of stopping; under the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, subsidized West Bank settlement has been diligently developed and expanded. Netanyahu also destroyed a Palestinian bid for statehood in the United Nations. Granted, Israel faces annihilationist threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian nuclear weapon program, but it is still a country with nuclear weapons capabilities and a strong economy, and is perceived as the oppressor—not the oppressed. And, quite demonstrably, these American Jewish interest groups have an ever-broadening role in our nation’s foreign pol-
American Jewish interest groups have an ever-broadening role in our nation’s foreign policy
Zionism remains the language of choice—and, at least linguistically, the organizations stress human rights and compromise. On the whole, the rhetoric of One reason for this is that older mainstream American Jewish American Jews still self-identify organizations claims to follow as Democrats and remain secu14 The Hill
larists. Yet they still support a Jewish homeland, because they maintain memories of Arab armies at Israel’s border, and Israel’s survival due (in part) to U.S. interference.
icy, and have influenced White House policy on the issue. For example, in Netanyahu’s first meeting with Obama in 2009, Obama was insistent on a freeze on settlements in the West Bank, and convinced Ne-
Opinion
tanyahu to halt settlements for 10 months. Back then, he was adamant about finding an end to the occupation, but it seems that the times have changed. In a recent meeting between the two leaders, Obama was in a more vulnerable position because of his fight for reelection and need of the American Jewish community’s support. In the most recent meeting, which involved discussions of Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities, many are saying that a basis for a deal is emerging: Netanyahu will hold off on striking Iran until after the U.S. presidential elections, and in return will receive certain guarantees on tough talk against Iran from Obama, and maybe even promise to refrain from putting pressure on the Palestinian issue. The immense influence that the Israel lobby has can also be seen in the Republican primary race. A prime example is billionaire casino owner Sheldon
the immense influence that the Israel lobby has can also be seen in the Republican primary race.
the interests of the vast majority of younger and more secular American Jews, and is an incidence of a passionate minority representing the interests of an unorganized majority. The Israel lobby too often provides unabashed support for Israel, but the time may have come to offer some constructive criticism, rather than exclusively blaming Palestine for the lack of peace in the region. Radhika Kshatriya is a junior majoring in philosophy.
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby” Founded 1963 by Isaiah L. Kenan
Mission:
“to strengthen the ties between the United States and its ally Israel.”
Membership:
approx. 100,000
Legislative Agenda:
1. Preventing Iranian Nuclear Weaponization 2. Support for Tougher Sanctions on Iran 3. Enhancement of U.S.Israel Security Cooperation 4. Support for Security Assistance for Israel
Annual Budget: $60 million
Lobbying Expenditures: $2.1 million (2011)
Adelson, a friend to the young Netanyahu, who also bankrolled Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, the same Newt Gingrich who called the Palestinians “an invented people.” Many major American Jewish organizations are too often controlled by a small number of wealthy donors, such as Adelson (an Orthodox Jew). It seems that the voice of the Israel lobby does not adequately represent March/April 2012
15
International
New Leadership in North Korea
I
By Krishna Kollu
n early March 2012, Kim Jongun, the new Supreme Leader of North Korea, visited the military compound in Panmunjon, a village on the border between North Korea and South Korea. Within the range of South Korean guards, he thundered: “If there is a fight erupting, our military and people will have the enemy kneeling before us to sign not a truce this time but a document of surrender.” Military Chief Ri Young declared that North Korea would “sweep out” their enemies in South Korea with their weapons. Later, North Korean citizens and soldiers rallied against the president of South Korea, “Let’s kill Lee Myung-bak by tearing him to pieces.” Based on rhetoric alone, it seems that the new supreme commander of the Korean People’s army and his policies are belligerent. However, only a week before he visited the village where the armistice between North Korea and South Korea was signed, Kim Jong-un signed a deal with the United States agreeing to shut down his country’s nuclear enrichment program and accept UN observers. What gives? Kim Jong-un had strong incentives to pursue the deal. The nuclear deal with the United States secures 240,000 tons of food, a big boost to a nation that has endured shortages of food since famine in the 90s. Some analysts have argued that the centennial anniversary of Kim Il Sung, who ruled North Korea from 1948 to 1994, is approaching on April 15th and that North Korean officials wanted the food to deliver on their promises for a grand celebration. Whether or not this is the case, the deal is a continuation of previous talks between the United States and North Korea from before Kim Jong-il’s death in December; many observers, such as Stephen Bosworth, the former US special representative 16 The Hill
based on rhetoric alone, it seems that the new supreme commander of the Korean People’s army and his policies are belligerent for North Korea, thought that this deal was possible in the old regime. In any case, Kim Jong-un’s successfully completing the deal shows that there is stability in the North Korean government. When the new Supreme Leader first ascended to power, some observers fretted that the inexperienced leader would not successfully navigate his way into power. Indeed, the Pentagon selected “the Collapse of North Korea” as one of its war games, considering the mass exodus of malnourished refugees and the potential insecurity of the North Korean nuclear arsenal as key game changers in the region. Fast forward a few months, and premonitions about near-term catastrophe now seem exceedingly unlikely; it appears that the young leader’s grip on power is safe. There are three inner circles of power in North Korea. The first is the ruling family, who are obviously on the new leader’s side. The second is the Korean Worker’s party, who see their futures tied to Kim Jong-un. The third inner circle, the military, was most likely to be the potential source of trouble. However, the young leader benefits from his father’s push for a “military-first policy” and from his own daring rhetoric and aggressive-seeming policies. As he seeks to foster unity in North Korea, Kim Jong-un has political reasons to maintain his hot-tempered words with his South Korean counterpart, even as the North Korean government seeks to improve relations with the United States for pragmatic reasons. Scott Snyder, the Senior Fellow
for Korea Studies and Director of the Program on US-Korea Policy, conveyed in a phone interview with The Hill that as the North Koreans go through a political transition, it makes sense for the regime to have an external threat by which to unify the people. Ultimately, there are still unresolved questions. How far will the new North Korean government go in dealing with the United States? Will they ever denuclearize, as the United States hopes? Hardliners in North Korea see their nuclear status as crucial to the security of the country, a crowning achievement of the previous Supreme Leader and a necessary element of their arsenal in a world hostile to their interests. At the same time, the recently signed nuclear moratorium shows that North Korea, led by a Switzerland-educated youngster, realizes that a new approach is needed. Only time will tell if Kim Jong-un will take his country on a road that leads to peace and economic welfare. Krishna Kollu is a senior majoring in economics and computer science.
Protests and Change in Russia
O n March 4th, Vladimir Putin won an unprecedented third
term as president of post-Soviet Russia. But his reelection was accompanied by a massive wave of protests that will inevitably reshape the politics of Putin’s rule. Blatantly fraudulent results in the December parliamentary election sparked large protests, some of which sporadically reoccurred until the presidential election reignited some of the large-scale unrest. Since then, however, the protests have died down and appear to be losing steam. Despite the recent unrest, the election showed that most Russians appreciate the stability and economic growth that accompanied Putin’s quasi-authoritarian rule. Russia’s government under Putin has not been democratic by western standards, but it has re-
By Brendan Cooley ferent system, but there’s a sense that there’s a lot of corruption in that system.” Therefore, it is likely that Putin’s new regime will accommodate the protesters’ demands to some extent. The threat from the protests is not an existential one for the regime currently, but left unaddressed that threat could grow. Some public intellectuals in the United States have predicted more radical change could result from the protests. Even before protests reemerged after Putin’s reelection, Leon Aron, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute declared, “Putin is already dead.” And Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, suggested in his new book that long-run democratic reforms could even push
despite the recent unrest, the election showed that most Russians appreciate the stability and economic growth that accompanied Putin’s quasi-authoritarian rule mained relatively popular. After living through the political instability and poor economic conditions that were the hallmarks of post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s, Russians welcomed Putin’s rule. The recent protests mark a departure from this consensus, however. The protesters, in general, do not want a complete overthrow of the system of governance that defined the last decade in Russia, said Erica Johnson, professor of global studies at UNC. While the political issues underlying their protests varied, widespread corruption was chief among the protesters’ grievances. In an interview with The Hill Johnson said, “It’s not necessarily demand for a dif-
International
Russia’s vote against UN action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s war on his own people was based on this principle of national sovereignty. The protests have undermined the legitimacy of Putin’s rule, but minor attempts to stamp-out corruption, along with a reinforcement of this populist narrative should reaffirm his status as the sole and unchallenged ruler of Russia. The protests raised hopes in the United States that Russia, like much of the Middle East, might be beginning a transition to a more democratic, more U.S.-friendly regime. These hopes appear inflated. Russia will change politically, but the changes will not be revolutionary. The Russian government has not had to resort to violence to quell the protestors, and Putin retains a strong base of support, particularly among the under-educated. Putin has been damaged by the protests, but he is certainly not “dead.” Brendan Cooley is a sophomore majoring in peace, war, & defense and economics.
Russia into the U.S.-led democratic ‘West,’ though there are reasons to doubt Brzezinski’s prediction. Russia has been the most reliably anti-U.S. vote on the UN Security Council for years, and notably sparred with the United States over a ballistic missile defense program based in Poland. President Obama cancelled the program in 2009, but Russia has remained adversarial toward the U.S. Indeed, Putin made repeated use of antiUS rhetoric during his campaign. Putin’s popularity is in part based on the perception that he is a sort of crusader against the hubristic sovereignty infringements of the United States and its allies. March/April 2012
17
International
India’s Aspirations to Attain Superpower Status
A
By Siddarth Nagaraj
mid increasing competition between the U.S. and China for hegemony within the realm of international affairs and muted tensions over the latter’s military expansion, relatively little attention has been paid as of late to the geopolitical ambitions of China’s smaller, but nearly as populous neighbor. India, which has long dreamed of superpower status, hopes now to attain it as policymakers pursue increased military might at home while furthering political interests abroad, prompting debate about the country’s rightful role in the global arena. As the world’s second-most populous state and largest democracy, India has long held a unique and prominent position among developing nations, but the possibility that it could become a major player in international trade and politics seemed remote. Recent rapid economic expansion over the last two decades, however, has unleashed an aspiring middle class and an ambitious vision of a more respected and influential nation. While much of India’s current clout comes from its remarkable economic surge, it is currently bolstering its strength in other areas, notably defense. During the last five years, India has become the world’s largest arms importer, accounting for 10 percent of international sales. The government expects to spend nearly $80 billion on military equipment and technology by 2015 in order to increase India’s weight in the global defense arena. The United States’ reaction to India’s ambitions has grown from one of ambiguity and concern to greater engagement and at times support, particularly in light of China’s rise. Following a 2005 deal to separate India’s civil and military nuclear facilities in exchange for US support for the country’s civil nuclear program, defense ties between the two countries grew, marking
a shift from earlier relations strained by India’s long tensions with Pakistan (heightened in recent years by mutual nuclear proliferation). They have since conducted numerous joint military exercises, and in 2010 the US announced its support for India’s long-held desire to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, although little has resulted. Not all think it wise to support India’s ambitions. Although a powerful Indian state might serve as a strategic bulwark to China, some fear that Indo-U.S. defense deals might stoke the deterioration of counterterror cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan. However, Professor David Schanzer of Duke University thinks the U.S.-Pakistani relationship would survive, given that it is “critical for counterterrorism success” in all three countries. Others note that India has pursued major defense deals with other states, such as France and Russia, and has been careful not to align itself directly with the U.S., often remaining neutral or taking opposing stances on major international policy issues, such as combating climate change and purchasing Iranian oil. Advocates of closer ties maintain that all countries act in their own interests and that U.S. failure to engage in defense-linked trade with India would forsake a major strategic partnership with the world’s largest democratic (and soon to be most populous) state, giving other governments opportunities to strengthen relations with a rising power at America’s expense. Despite the esteem linked to superpower status, some Indians believe their leaders are pursuing the wrong objectives. Many believe that endemic corruption endangers the growth which has powered India’s rise, arguing that government officials’ misuse of public resources for profit continues to reach
India has long held a unique and prominent position among developing nations
18 The Hill
unprecedented levels, most flagrantly the illegal sale of mobile phone licenses (which cost taxpayers a then-unprecedented $39 billion, only to be outdone by fraudulent coal mining concessions worth $210 billion). Ramachandra Guha, a renowned historian and Philippe Roman Chair of International Affairs at the London School of Economics, is perhaps the most prominent academic critic of India’s superpower-oriented aspirations. He notes that his country still endures decrepit public infrastructure, immense socioeconomic inequality, and environmental degradation, all phenomena commonly noted by those skeptical about the prospect of an Indian superpower. Professor Guha argues that India should not become a superpower, as in his view such a mindset infuses policymakers with a hypercompetitive spirit, encouraging obsession about perceptions of superiority. India’s prospects of becoming a superpower in the near future may be debatable, but it is an ambition that will surely survive. No matter how events unfold, one thing is certain: India will follow its own model of development, and will find its place in the global order in its own way.
Siddarth Nagaraj is a senior majoring in global studies and political science.
Intervention in Sudan?
S
By Ian Helfrich
outh Sudan, the world’s “newest country,” is in a state of continuous turmoil. The same countries that supported the recognition of South Sudan’s sovereignty, member states in the United Nations that helped stop violence in Sudan to begin with, now find themselves stuck watching helplessly as an ongoing civil war unfolds. However, recent action by these same countries to avoid peacekeeping action and allow genocide, is eerily reminiscent of a prior conflict in which the United Nations played a key part in establishing “peace” before a massive war. In 1994, an ethnic majority, Rwandan Hutus, massacred nearly 1,000,000 members of their brethren ethnic minority, Rwandan Tutsis, as well as moderates between the two groups. This was the result of decades of propaganda stemming back to the creation of the ethnic divisions themselves by Belgian occupiers. These two “ethnic groups” were really the same people. Socioeconomic differences suddenly became a physical trait. Looking through papers from the past five years or so will render hundreds of stories of Darfur, a small region in Sudan, and the humanitarian crisis based in its borders. Though differences exist between every single conflict, states considering intervention rely on their knowledge of historical examples to shape strategies in the future. International intervention tactics often stem from nothing more than a combination of “what we did before” and “what we could reasonably do now.” As conflict between Northern and Southern tribesman in Sudan resurges, new ethnic genocides disrupt vital societal healing processes and provide confusing information as to the actual costs and benefits of intervention. Regardless of western confusion, more reports of socioeconomic-based violence continue to flood through western media sources. In response to this, the UN called
International
for a division of the state. This new “South Sudan” gave some formal legitimacy and protection to separate ethnic groups within Sudan and stemmed the tide of war. This was a mere nine months ago. However, in late 2011, the Murle, a major tribe in northern Sudan, launched raids against a rival southern tribe, the Lou Nuer, killing a few hundred tribesmen. The Lou Nuer countered by killing over 6,000 and displacing tens of thousands more. Right now fresh history is being made faster than the blood and sand can mix. Over 3,000 men, women, and children were massacred on January 5th, 2012. As a reaction to prior violence, 6,000 Nuer youth marched on a village of Murle and killed a confirmed 2,182 women and children along with 959 men. The worst part? The world saw this coming. The United Nations dispatched 3,000 peacekeepers (by some sources) to the village in ques-
now fresh history is being made faster than the blood and sand can mix. tion, but when they saw the Nuer approaching they simply retreated into their fortified structures without firing a shot. The United Nations may have difficulties enforcing peace when they have to fight the political battle of state sovereignty, but if peacekeeping forces are present one would expect them to attempt to quell an approaching armed crowd.
Should we intervene in Sudan further? Does the political model of enforced third party intervention actually work? And, do you think that the UN has the ability to be effective in stopping future crises like this minigenocide from occurring? Some members of the international civil society argue that there is an emotional tie which spans any geographical barrier, regardless of nationality. Others maintain that the costs of intervention outweigh the benefits of getting involved in conflict. We all must act according to Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative: act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world. Each member nation has to weigh their values in comparison with what they stand to lose in the international arena of conflict resolution. One fact remains certain: as members of the United Nations, it is our responsibility to choose what to do next in South Sudan, but holding a double standard of enforcement and non-enforcement will only raise one thing: the death toll.
Ian Helfrich is a sophomore majoring in economics and political science.
Nevertheless, though this current conflict is still only a shade of the Rwandan genocide, Sudan’s genocide has claimed over 400,000 lives and has displaced millions since 2001. Who’s to say that this new U.N. recognized “South Sudan” will continue to exist in relative peace if the very agents enforcing the peace continue to retreat into their brick houses while Sudanese are killed in their stick huts? March/April 2012
19
Visit The Hill online to find more material and information about joining our staff: studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill