The Claremont Independent - November 2012 by Claremont Independent

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT VOLUME XXII, NUMBER 1 NOVEMBER 2012

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT table of contents. Editor in Chief Mariina Giloi Managing Editor William Mitchell Associate Editors Amelia Evrigenis Colin Spence Layout Editors Lynsey Chediak Tess Sewell

Editorial

Publisher Chris Gaarder

Quick Update on the CMC Presidential Search

Editors Emeriti John-Clark Levin Hannah Burak

Daeschle Doesn’t Deliver

Publisher Emeritus Michael Koenig

Mitt Romney and the 47%: Reading Between the Lines

Illustrator Simon Giloi

Summer Internship Experience

2016: Obama’s America

CMC’s Unsustainable Party Culture

Staff Writers Eliot Adams, Janet Alexander, Travis Athougies, John Bedecarre, Joanna Chavez, Ben Daniels, Breanna Deutsch, Aidan Fahnestock, Liza Fletche, Patricia Ingrassia, Paul Jeffrey, Kyle Johnson, Abie Katz, Michael Koenig, Brett Mills, Christina Noriega, Dan O’Toole, Christopher Ranger, Alexander Rhodes, Martin Sartorius, Linden Schult, Julio Sharp, Becky Shin, Jason Soll, Robert Stewart, Brittany Taylor, Eric Yingling

Marina Giloi, CMC ‘14 Kyle Johnson, CMC ‘16 Colin Spence, CMC ‘15

Martin Sartorius, CMC ‘15 Chris Gaarder, CMC ‘15

Amelia Evrigenis, CMC ‘15 Marina Giloi, CMC ‘14

editorial by Marina Giloi

EDITORIAL

Editor in Chief

It’s a new academic year, and a prominent one for American politics. New students have already been bombarded by clubs, publications, and organizations, all vying for freshman enthusiasm. In the scheme of things, The Claremont Independent is a small presence. Yet every year, I am reminded of why we matter. The CI is the only libertarian/conservative newspaper on the 5Cs, something that makes us a valuable contributor to political discourse on campus. In addition, we are the only student newspaper that does not receive funding from any of the colleges. Why does this matter? Being financially independent from the institutions that we report on allows us to constructively evaluate them, even when our stance on certain issues may be unpopular. I joined the CI as a freshman, mostly on a whim, by writing my name on the signup sheet at CMC’s Club Fair. Since then, I have gotten to take on more leadership, finally ending up in the Editor-in-Chief position. It’s not something I do to build my resume, or even because I have an interest in pursuing journalism or writing in the future. I do it because, even through its ups and downs, this publication has value for the

general student body. To me, the CI represents much of what is so special about our consortium; it promotes discussion of campus and political issues from a variety of perspectives and acknowledges the legitimacy of differing views. It has a lasting legacy of commitment to integrity and transparency. This year, I am excited to continue that commitment. I’ve already met with Editor-in-Chief Sam Kahr of our “rival” publication The Claremont Portside to discuss how the publications might join efforts to promote political discourse on campus and increase exposure to campus journalism. We’ve also reached out to a variety of groups such as the Alexander Hamilton Society, the Claremont College Republicans, and the Claremont Association of Business and Law to facilitate campus interest in international relations, American politics, and commerce. To all the returning students, welcome back, and to all the new students, welcome to the Claremont Colleges and The Claremont Independent. It should be an exciting year ahead. CI

The Claremont Independent is an independent journal of campus affairs and political thought serving the colleges of the Claremont Consortium. The magazine receives no funding from any of the colleges and is distributed free of charge on campus. All costs of production are covered by the generous support of private foundations and individuals. The Claremont Independent is dedicated to using journalism and reasoned discourse to advance its ongoing mission of Upholding Truth and Excellence at the Claremont Colleges.

campus life

QUICK UPDATE ON THE CMC PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH by Kyle Johnson

Staff Writer

Ever since President Gann’s planned decision to step down from her position at CMC last March, the Presidential Search Committee has been working tirelessly to find a suitable candidate to follow her. However, a lot of students still are not entirely clear as to how the Committee works, what they’re looking for, or how far they’ve progressed.

“

It might seem a simple prospect, but the committee has taken it upon themselves to develop very strong criterion for the type of president they would like to attract.

The committee is formed of eight college trustees, five senior faculty members, one alumni representative, as well as one student representative, our current ASCMC president. Their goal is to find a candidate able to follow in the footsteps of CMC’s presidents by improving and growing the college as a whole. It might seem a simple prospect, but the committee has taken it upon themselves to develop very strong criterion for the type of president they would like to attract. A few of their stated presidential characteristics include an ability to profitably and dynamically manage the college’s finances, a focus on significantly expanding CMC’s reputation and name recognition, strong, unifying management skills, a desire to further CMC’s offerings in science and technology, and a talent for attracting top students and faculty. The process by which the committee actually goes about searching for and choosing our new president is more difficult

for most to understand. They follow a three step process to narrow down the selection. First, they define the institutional goals, characteristics, and attributes of the school, next they discover fitting candidates by networking with students, alumni, and professionals, and finally they, by process of elimination, select the most suitable candidate. The trustee executive committee has hired the services of John Isaacson of the private executive search firm Isaacson, Miller to aid the selection committee in the pursuance of this rather ambiguous three step process. Some of the other key decision makers on this committee include Chair of the Board of Trustees, Harry McMahon ‘75, past Chair of the Board of Trustees, Peter Barker ‘70, as well as Attorney and former President of the Alumni Association, Laura Grisolano ’86. The final decision will ultimately rest with the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Harry McMahon. Some of the more notable faculty on the committee include Crown Professor of Government, Prof. Andrew Busch, Roberts Fellow, Prof. Eric Helland, and Roberts Fellow, Prof. Diane Halpern. Throughout the search, CMC and the committee have done an impressive job attempting to make this a community effort. Students and members of the college community are encouraged to visit the Presidential Search Committee website (www.cmc.edu/presidential_search/) to both provide feedback about the process and to submit their own nominations for the college’s future president. Although the data and design is somewhat obtuse and difficult to navigate, they also have plenty of great information freely available on the site. A variety of open forums have also been held to communicate and inform parents, faculty, alumni and students about the progress and process of the search. Unfortunately, inherent in the search for new executives in professional and academic fields is the need to maintain the confidentiality of candidate’s identities and backgrounds. This makes true transparency rather difficult to attain in this process. However, I applaud CMC and the committee’s dedicated efforts to make students an important and involved part of this extremely relevant decision. The committee expects to remain on track to have a decision by July 1st of 2013. CI

campus life

Claremont Alexander Hamilton Society

National Organization: hamsoc.org Claremont Chapter: http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/285266394916226/ President: Hannah Burak, hburak13@cmc.edu Vice-President: Christina Noriega, cnoriega1650@scrippscollege.edu CAHS is a new 5-C club dedicated to enriching the foreign affairs dia� logue on campus. We approach this task in two ways. The first is through reading group discussions. Our first was Thursday, September 27—we dis� cussed foreign policy and the upcoming election over Thai food. We covered the gamut of opinions on Obama’s foreign policy actions, listened to his fa� mous Cairo speech, and surmised about Romney’s foreign policy views. Our second function lies in bringing foreign policy speakers to campus. Our next meeting will be dedicated to choosing which experts we would like to invite to Claremont. AHS is a national network of outstanding students, faculty, and professionals, which sponsors debates at colleges and universities, as well as in major cities, and provides other opportunities for its members to flourish intellectually, professionally, and personally. The national organization, headquartered in D.C. was founded on the belief that, “time and again, in peace and in war, the ability of the American political system to profit from vigorous public discussion has proved its worth; and that, at this moment in our history, our public discussion of foreign, economic, and national security policy stands very much in need of renewal.”

Claremont Association of Business and Law Claremont Association of Business and Law is an organization that provides a form of social and career enrich� ment to the student body through organized events and networking trips. CABL is partnered with Claremont McKenna College’s Career Service Center and provides students a network to help pursue careers in business and law. Andrew Nam ‘15 (Founder & President) created and launched CABL in September 2012 to serve as the bridge between the students and their career path in business and law. Alice Chang (VP of Operations), Ian O’Grady (VP of Communications), and �� Aseem Chipalkatti (Trea� surer) are founding officers along with Andrew Nam. As the organization matures and grows its re� sources, it will provide rare networking opportuni� ties. Students will be able to have personal dinners, Athenaeum events, and other opportunities with CMC Alums and recruiters. CABL also does coordinated projects with the Claremont Consulting Group and the Center for In� novation and Entrepreneurship. Students can get involved in the club by liking the Facebook page (facebook.com/ ca.businessandlaw), signing up for the email list ( ca.businessandlaw@gmail.com), and tuning in for the next CABL event.

opinion

by Colin Spence

DASCHLE DOESN’T DELIVER Associate Editor

On September 24, former Senator Tom Daschle spoke at the Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum about the state of the healthcare system in the United States. Daschle, a former Democratic Senator from South Dakota and a former Majority Leader of the Senate, spoke about his views on the US’s current healthcare system, the Affordable Care Act, and the future of healthcare in the United States. Senator Daschle began by discussing the current healthcare system, and expounded on what he believes is wrong with it. Mr. Daschle identified three problems with the current system, and also discussed the multiple sources of these issues. These three issues, which Daschle argued are undisputed by both sides of the political aisle, are access to care, cost, and lack of quality. Senator Daschle pointed out that between 50 and 90 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured and that as a country, the US is spending 16% of its GDP, $2.5 trillion, on healthcare each year. Mr. Daschle further explained that the third issue, lack of quality, derives from a lack of basic healthcare available to all and a tendency to associate technology with quality, even though the technology is not as important as ordinary healthcare. Mr. Daschle then moved on to the causes of these problems, causes that he again stated were not in dispute. He first pointed out that the current system lacked transparency, saying that there was an incredible dearth of information about doctors and hospitals, and this precluded patients from making informed decisions. He next pointed out that unnecessary care was costing $800-900 billion, and resulted from the current fee for service model, which rewards volume over quality, as well as the current practice of defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits. He continued by calling attention to the fact that administrative costs and a lack of efficiency drive up costs, as does the prevalence of fraud and abuse in the current system. Mr. Daschle concluded this segment of his speech by arguing that there is even agreement between both political sides over what the goal in regards to health service should be. This goal, according to Mr. Daschle, is a high-performance, high-value healthcare marketplace with better access, better quality, and lower costs. Mr. Daschle continued his speech by speaking about current efforts to solve the many problems in existence. Mr. Daschle praised the Affordable Care Act for making universal access part of national policy, for containing costs, and for

improving quality. He then told the audience 10 things in the ACA that they should know. What Senator Daschle did not do was address the many concerns that surround the ACA and the future of the American healthcare system. Daschle did mention that a political obstacle to enacting the law was disagreement over the role of government in private life, but never elaborated on that point. Senator Daschle never addressed the issue that the ACA represents a massive intervention into a private segment of the economy, and forces the industry to make huge changes in how it operates. He also did not address the costs associated with the ACA, which is another major source of disagreement around the law. These omissions made the speech lack substance, and frustrated many listeners, both liberal and conservative, who had hoped to hear a detailed plan of what the United States should do going forward, and how the problems associated with the ACA, of which there are several, should be dealt with. Mr. Daschle failed to address these concerns in any significant manner. He did note that former Governor Romney, the GOP candidate for President, has pledged to work to repeal the ACA if elected and insinuated that this was not a desirable outcome. He, however, never fully explained why this particular outcome would be unacceptable. The undesirability of repealing the ACA is open to argument, and therefore should not be dismissed without consideration. The ACA does attempt to do some good, but it also represents a significant change in regulation, business practices, taxation, and consumer choice in one of the largest industries in the US economy. This law will cost the US significantly over the coming years, and not just monetarily. Its strict and extremely wide-reaching regulations will restrict choice for consumers and slow down innovation as financial incentives disappear, and it could force some companies into bankruptcy as the ACA puts huge burdens on the companies to provide for every illness, while not doing enough to encourage patients to be responsible. If this is the case, maybe it is better to repeal this law, and try to put together an alternative that is focused on getting it right, not just on getting it passed. Either way, the solution to our healthcare system’s woes is a topic of serious debate, and one that deserves a serious conversation addressing the pros and cons of each potential answer. On this note, Senator Daschle failed to deliver. CI

opinion

MITT ROMNEY AND THE 47%: READING BETWEEN THE LINES by Martin Sartorius Staff Writer Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, is a candidate that many people love to hate. Even on the Republican side, there are many who complain about his lack of conservative credentials and his yo-yoing policy maneuvers. When a video of him talking to rich donors was leaked on the Internet a couple of weeks ago, both liberals and conservatives quickly jumped on the bandwagon to complain about a man they consider to be unfit for office. The mentioned video captured Romney saying that “there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent on the government, who believe they are victims…these are people who pay no income tax”. To make matters even more complicated for the struggling Romney campaign, he was also recorded as saying, “my job is not to worry about these people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives”. For many liberals, the video was conclusive proof that Romney was an elitist who was out of touch with the people of the US. Even the conservative media had a mixed response; for example, conservative journalist Bill Kristol wrote that Romney’s comments were “arrogant and stupid.” Romney’s choice of words were lamentable, and do not help him combat criticisms of elitism from the Obama campaign. Furthermore, his figure of 47% includes many people that he does not want to be attacking. It is true that about 47% of American voters do not pay income tax, but of those 47%, 22% are retired people and 61% are people who pay payroll tax but not income tax. These numbers suggest that Romneygwas not fully aware of the demographic make up of the 47%, because the statistic includes many potential Romney voters who believe in Republican values of self-reliance and small government. As a presidential candidate in the 21st century, Romney must know that everything that he says or does might end up on the internet, for better or for worse. He simply cannot be caught saying something that can be construed as inflammatory or ignorant. Once you get past the poor choice in words, Romney’s comments do point to a very important issue in this campaign. Although he did not say it well, Romney’s 47% comments refer to the fact that the 2012 election has, in essence, become an election based largely on class warfare. I think that we can all agree that it is a fair assumption for Romney to not expect to change the beliefs of strong-minded liberals who see him

as an evil “fat cat”. For many Democrat voters, any candidate who represents the “haves”, i.e. Romney, is, ideologically, a world away from them. Obama’s seemingly endless attacks on private business and wealth have created an atmosphere in the Democrat camp of “it’s us against them” (or the 1%, if you go by the Occupy movement’s rhetoric), and it is no small secret that many of Obama’s strongest supporters include many people who have vested interests in welfare programs that come from a larger federal government (namely, the lower classes). These factors have made the 2012 election a remarkably ideological one, and Romney is right to say that many voters will never change their mind on voting against him. Instead of taking Romney’s quotes so literally, I would like people to realize that Romney is bringing up a legitimate discussion topic for the US. This election hase great potential to sparr debates over topics such as, “How big should the government be?” or “How well does capitalism work?”, and this potential for enlightening dialogue is being squandered by stubborn ideologues. I am a realist and I do not expect contemporary media outlets to be the source of this debate, but I do hope that my words make liberals and conservatives alike in the Claremont Colleges think twice about what Romney said. CI

feature

SUMMER INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE

by Chris Gaarder Publisher Last spring, after years of sitting on the sidelines, I decided it was time to see politics first-hand, to get to know it in the way you can’t from reading a book or watching a History Channel special. I emailed my cover letter and resume to a few local elected officials’ offices, as well as to some politically active family friends back home in Whittier, a city located about 30 minutes from Claremont (and yes, Richard Nixon’s hometown). A few days later, I received a call from a man named Noel Jaimes, who was running to represent the Whittier area in the California State Assembly. We talked, and I agreed to come on board his campaign. I applied for CMC’s Political Education Fellowship, and got it. As the youngest person involved in his campaign by 30 years, and as a tech nerd, it seemed natural that I was asked to control Jaimes’ web presence. I started by setting up a campaign Facebook page with a grainy profile picture of Jaimes, and infrequently posted about district and state issues. The next task was the search for a website provider. I found a company that provided the framework for his website at $200 every six months. With that, we could email tens of thousands of residents, accept donations, list our endorsements, make blog posts, and recruit volunteers. One trick to drive traffic was that on Jaimes’s website, we also provided services indirectly related to his campaign. I posted a link to LA County’s electronic voter registration system, embedded a Google map of the 57th AD so voters could see if their

house sat in Jaimes’s district, and set up a tool for looking up each house’s polling location. Jaimes faced a rather daunting primary competition. It was his first time running for office, and he was running against two local Democratic Party institutions. Before 2012, in primary elections, each party’s voters received a party-specific ballot to choose their nominee to run in the general election. The 2012 primary, however, was California’s first using a toptwo system, which means that everyone ran against everyone, regardless of party. As a result, in June, the Republican Jaimes ran against two Democrats. This type of election is nicknamed a “jungle primary.” One Democratic faction supported former assemblyman Rudy Bermudez, running for a third term. The other faction stood with the Calderon Dynasty. The current assemblyman for our area, termed-out Charles Calderon, put forward his 26-year-old son Ian, the other candidate. Between Charles and his two brothers, there has been a Calderon in the state legislature every year for the past 30 years. Bermudez, Calderon, and their competing interest groups spent over $1 million collectively on their primary election battle. Jaimes, on the other hand, spent just a few thousand to get his name out. Unlike his opponents, Jaimes didn’t have Sacramento lobbyists on speed-dial to fund his campaign. Bermudez called Calderon an entitled child. Calderon called Bermudez a supporter of child pornography. It wasn’t pretty. We quietly spread Jaimes’ name while watching the local civil war unfold, and prepared to face whichever opponent emerged from the bloodbath. After the polls closed, Jaimes exceeded expectations, earning 44% of the vote, while Calderon and Bermudez each received 28%. Calderon pulled off a 250-vote victory against Bermudez, and with that, a spot in the general election. After the primary election, Jaimes’ campaign was comparatively low on money. We had to think diligently about how to reach out to voters most efficiently with what little funds remained. If we had unlimited money, we’d send out a mailer every week. If we had unlimited volunteers, we would canvass the district several times and hold dozens of public events. As the first-place underdog, with neither unlimited money nor unlimited time, what would be the most cost- and time-efficient manner of getting Jaimes’s message out into the community? A couple trial runs revealed that for every one dollar spent on Facebook advertising, we could reach as many as 1,200 people 2,500 times, with as broad or specifically targeted an advertise-

feature

ment as we wanted. We could run as few as three or as many ar three hundred different ads at once, to appeal to different groups. One ad might present Jaimes’ main policy positions and background in order to introduce him to the whole district. Another ad might tout his endorsements from the Whittier City Councilmen to Whittier residents. I could target each advertisement to a different audience based on age, sex, city, zip code, interests (derived from “liking” pages), educational attainment, and even what electronic device through which Facebook is used (I ran an ad promoting a blog post about the La Mirada City Council saving tens of thousands of dollars per year by switching their weekly council meeting info packets from paper to iPads, and targeted it to La Mirada residents over the age of 30 accessing Facebook using an iPad, The iPad ad created a lot more traffic than a similar advertisement that was less targeted.). Why spend precious money to tell people in Norwalk about the Whittier endorsements when you can tell them about Norwalk endorsements? Why not put an “R” after Jaimes’ name when sending an ad to a Republican audience (made up of residents who have “liked” Mitt Romney, the Republican Party, John Boehner, etc…), and skip the R when sending a similar ad to Democrats? Talk about education for younger people and parents, and public safety for older voters.

While each individual ad may not be super effective, the one dollar spent on Facebook, might otherwise be spent on sending out two letters to voters, who might not even read them. Facebook, and web advertising in general, achieve all that conventional advertising strives for, but more efficiently, and while providing instant, accurate effectiveness data for free. When building name-recognition on the cheap is one of your biggest tasks, web advertising is simply the best option, especially when there are 200,000+ potential voters in your district, just waiting to be reached! After spending dozens of hours working on getting Jaimes’ message out through Facebook, I can’t help but think of numbers when thinking about elections. During the presidential primaries, I found Real Clear Politics’ color-coded graphs of polling data intoxicating. Facebook provides a million and one different metrics for measuring how many users of each age and gender group a page reaches in each city, so that only exacerbated my problem. While elections always have been a numbers game, computers bring it to another level. Numbers make you think about strategy a certain way. While it was politically incorrect to utter his 47% comment, in this election, if Mitt Romney and the president didn’t write off almost 47% of voters as unreachable this election, they’d be fools. Spending so much time with the numbers makes you realize that more clearly. Even in the 2012 multi-billion dollar election, Romney would misallocate resources by going after Occupy Wall Street votes, and Obama would do the same by spending precious time or money going after Tea Partiers. While it is nice to involve your heart in thinking about policy, to do so when planning election strategy in a 21st Century election is suicide. This summer, while talking with a neighboring congressman’s campaign manager, I learned one of the most blatantly obvious pieces of wisdom I was ever given. After we discussed policy for a bit, she reminded me that you can’t make the policy you want to make if your guy loses. It seems obvious, But I hadn’t really internalized that before. Political nerds, including myself, want to think of elections as an elevated process where the two sides go at it for the Soul of America. We want to think that for each candidate, the average undecided voter reads to page 73 of policy memo Z, watches every video they have online, and reads a few interview transcripts to get a better sense of each candidate’s philosophy so they can make their decision. The average undecided voter doesn’t do that. They might watch CNN the night before the election, but when they vote at the polls, it comes down to a gut decision. That gut decision is what campaigns and campaign advertising are all about, as in the end, what matters is getting your guy elected so your policy CI aims aren’t pipe dreams.

feature

2016: OBAMA’S AMERICA

by Amelia Evrigenis Associate Editor When I arrived on campus in September, I was stunned to discover that none of my friends had seen the new Obama film. 2016: Obama’s America, a documentary written and directed by bestselling author and political commentator Dinesh D’Souza, has earned its rank as the fourth-highest grossing documentary of all time. It is the second-highest grossing political documentary ever, surpassed only by Fahrenheit 9/11. The Claremont Colleges, especially my own Claremont McKenna College, are among the most politically active liberal arts colleges in the United States. I had expected to return to campus hearing a buzz about the film. As I settled into the semester, I recognized the naiveté of my expectation. Of course no one had seen the documentary. While I’m sure that a number of my peers were genuinely unaware that the film was in theaters, I would postulate that many of the more politically savvy students of the Claremont Colleges dismissed the film simply because of its self-admitted conservative perspective. 2016: Obama’s America is based on D’Souza’s book Roots of Obama’s Rage. In both the book and documentary, D’Souza delves into President Obama’s family history and childhood upbringing to develop a theoretical framework that explains the Obama administration’s most peculiar and incoherent policies. Dinesh D’Souza proposes that President Obama is motivated by the anti-colonial aspirations of his anti-colonial father. The United States of America is an inherently colonial nation. Our whole country is founded upon invading Native American land and exploiting its resources. Obama’s overarching goal, according to D’Souza, is to reduce America’s colonial footprint. D’Souza theorizes that Obama is driven by a desire “that the sins of colonialism be set right and America be downsized.” From where does this theory arise? And why does D’Souza attribute Obama’s anti-colonialism to his father? D’Souza generates this hypothesis from Obama’s own memoir, Dreams from My Father. Barack Obama Sr. was a Luo tribesman raised in Kenya. He was a member of the early generation of African scholars who studied in America and subsequently returned to their countries to promote anti-colonialism. According to D’Souza, Dreams from My Father makes it clear that President Obama has inherited his father’s anti-colonial convictions. Thus, D’Souza examines Obama through an anti-colonial lens. This lens explains the Obama administration’s most

bizarre policy decisions, and through it, we understand those policies as manifestations of the anti-colonial ideology. The anti-colonial framework explains why the Obama administration has supported and financed oil drilling off the coast of Brazil, but not within the United States. It explains why Obama has refused to support Britain in the dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. It explains why Obama has instructed NASA Chief Charles Bolden that the new primary mission of America’s space agency is to “reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historical contribution to science and math and engineering.” (That, for the record, is a direct quote from Bolden.) The list of anomalies continues. Why encourage oil drilling in Brazil, but not in our own country? Why refuse to support our closest ally in the dispute over the Falkland Islands? Why convert NASA, an agency intended for scientific research and exploration, into an instrument to foster harmony with Muslim nations? With an anti-colonial lens, we see that Obama has implemented these policies in an attempt to reduce America’s colonial footprint. Obama sides with the colonized over the colonizer.

campus life The Obama campaign has slammed the film as an “insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the president by giving intellectual cover to the worst in subterranean conspiracy theories and false, partisan attacks.” I do not believe that 2016: Obama’s America is flawless or free of bias, nor do I accept it as some sort of Bible for Obama critics. I do, however, believe that is a fascinating attempt to understand how Obama thinks. I admire that this film has revealed so many insights into the President’s history that an Obama-loving press has so skillfully kept under lock and key. It is a grave mistake to ignore this film’s message, to dismiss it as a form of right-wing political heresy. As students of the Claremont Colleges, we are immersed in liberalism. We live in an overwhelmingly liberal state, are taught be overwhelmingly liberal professors, and are surrounded by an overwhelmingly liberal student body. The political discourse we receive outside of the classroom is provided by a media that filters our news with its generally liberal bias. We must acknowledge that our understanding of reality is controlled by those who provide us our news and education. At the Claremont Colleges, we are immersed in a culture which, on the whole, is dominated by a notion that conservatism is unintelligent and illegitimate, thus unworthy of our intellectual attention. I fear for a generation of students that is so intolerant of conservative scholarship, yet so blindly accepting of liberalism. 2016: Obama’s America affords us the opportunity to examine our president from a perspective of which we are incredibly ignorant. See the film for yourself before you make your judgment. CI

CMC’S UNSUSTAINABLE PARTY CULTURE Marina Giloi | Editor in Chief

CMC parties often feel like the cornerstone of campus culture. With over $50,000 being spent by ASCMC on just three of the dozens of parties each year, parties have a driving political and financial influence that affects student life in numerous areas. The recent increase in Friday classes has been seen by some as the administration’s efforts to combat the Thursday night party culture. An ASCMC constitutional amendment was passed this year that reduced CMC’s dorm funding was “necessitated by unforeseen additional expense on security during the 2011-2012 academic year.” Previous budgetary disasters from the losses at the LMFAO concert and last year’s White Party have spurred the creation of this year’s ASCMC “Rainy Day Fund.” Event clean up, or lack thereof, remains a continual topic at Senate meetings. The recent resignation of Dormitory Affairs Chair (DAC) points to a continuing trend of unsustainability in CMC’s party culture. It is the second resignation of an ASCMC social chair in the last year, with a Student Life Chair resigning last September. While this article was not written to speculate on the personal lives of these students, these resignations do reveal something about the stressors of planning and executing these events. Recent experimentation with guest passes, guest policies, and TNC funding all represent ASCMC’s attempts to patch a shaky system. These resignations do not demonstrate a lack of motivation or commitment on ASCMC’s side. However, they do demonstrate that students are not professional event planners. And as the complexity and scale of these parties increase, the demands start to require more than what students can manage. Given the nature of the parties, increased support from administration seems unlikely, and instead seems to have simply generated increasing top-down regulation and restrictions that have only increased the planners’ burden. What’s necessary is a change in the attending students’ expectations. So often we see ASCMC members pushing towards bigger and better parties when, despite how unpopular the sentiment may be, some serious downsizing in terms of event features and frequency may be necessary. Here at CMC, we are afforded a near unmatched level of independence in student planning and recreation. It is unwise to allow our events to take such an ever increasingly disproportionate toll on the ASCMC budget and ASCMC social chairs. CI

@CmontInd