CPR Fall 2019 (XVIII, 3)

MASTHEAD & EDITOR’S NOTE

Editor-in-Chief

Isabelle Harris

Publisher

Celine Bacha

ManagingEditors

Benjamin Sachs

Alex Siegal

Hannah Wyatt

Senior Editors

Rachel Barkin

Jasleen Chaggar

Ramsay Eyre

Henry Feldman

Aja Johnson

Jodi Lessner

Helen Sayegh

CopyEditors

Zachary Becker

John David Cobb

Ellie Gaughan

Shomik Ghose

Aryeh Hajibay-Piranesi

Annabel Kelly

Grace Protasiewicz

Emily Ringel

Jake Tibbetts

Eleanor Katharine Yeo

Cover Art/Graphics

Mwandeyi Kamwendo

Op-Ed Staff Writers

Claire Choi

Olivia Choi

Sarah DeSouza

Sophia Houdaigui

Kathrine Malus

Jungwoo Park

Pallavi Sreedhar

Raya Tarawneh

Ariadne Xenopoulos

Feature Staff Writers

Cameron Adkins

Maria Castillo

Stella Cavedon

Devyani Goel

Kris Jenvaiyavasjamai

Heather Loepere

Diana Valcarcel

Charles Wallace

Ayse Yucesan

Recently, I’ve found myself asking older professors and political professionals if the world has ever felt this insane. The answer is almost always “no.”

Domestically, our democratic institutions have been battered by an all-out siege. Now, the impeachment inquiry into President Trump is poised to become the biggest American political showdown in my lifetime, with ramifications that will cascade across the globe. Abroad, meanwhile, mass protests in Chile, Venezuela, Hong Kong, France, Lebanon, and Egypt evoke equal parts fear and hope as democratic and antidemocratic forces clash.

And then there is the slow-moving crisis of climate change. How are we to prepare for adulthood in a world of extreme weather and rising sea levels? What is demanded of those of us whose lifestyles have contributed to these problems?

These are not easy questions, and actually undertaking what is demanded of us when we answer those questions honestly is even more difficult. But, unlike the generations that preceded us, we cannot afford to look away; around the world, the consequences of these crises are already beginning to mount.

From our cover story on Rick Perry’s tenure as Energy Secretary to our final article on United States sanitation policy, we understand that the sheer number of things that demand our moral attention can be overwhelming. Nevertheless, we hope the pages that follow allow you to more fully consider both your own place in this tumultuous geopolitical moment and how to navigate our uncertain future.

— Isabelle Harris, Editor-in-Chief

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this magazine belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Columbia Political Review, of CIRCA, or of Columbia University.

4: A Less-Than-Stellar Performance From Our Lone Star Energy Secretary

by Sophia Houdaigui

6: Selective Abortions: The Intersection of Disability and Reproductive Rights

by Jungwoo Park

8: Supreme Court Title VII Hearings: The Future of LGBTQ Civil Rights Hangs in the Balance

by Heather Loepere

10: Chile: An Invaluable Case Study for School Vouchers

by Pallavi Sreedhar

Fall 2019

Volume XVIII, No. 2

13: The Fight for $15: Does Raising the National Minimum Wage Benefit All Workers?

by Ariadne Xenopoulos

15: Creating Opportunity in Rural America

by Cameron Adkins

18: Egyptian Protests: Remnants of Revolution

by Raya Tarawneh

A LESS-THAN-STELLAR PERFORMANCE FROM OUR LONE STAR ENERGY SECRETARY

Given the Trump Administration’s daily distractions, the American public may have forgotten that a climate-denier who pledged to eliminate the Department of Energy during his unsuccessful 2011 presidential campaign currently runs the Department of Energy. Throughout his career, former Dancing With

the Stars contestant Rick Perry has utilized his platform to promote a pro-fossil fuel agenda in the name of job growth. As governor of Texas, Perry expanded the production of oil and natural gas, arguing that doing so would decrease “America’s dependence on hostile sources of foreign energy”. While American dependence on foreign sources of energy has diminished, we cannot continue to invest in unsustainable sources of energy. With rumors of Perry’s po-

tential resignation from the Department of Energy swirling, Americans must evaluate the Secretary of Energy’s current role in our government, and consider what that role could become under a real climate leader.

The Secretary of Energy is meant to support the agency’s mission of “ensur[ing] America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative

Sophia Houdaigui

science and technology solutions.” For example, the role holds the power to promote research concerning renewable energy and efficiency. Instead, Secretary Perry’s tenure proves that the disbelief in human-driven climate change is more powerful than any fringe conspiracy theory should have become.

Perry’s familiarity with the energy sector stems from his time as governor of Texas. When he decided not to seek a fourth term in 2014, he left behind a complicated energy legacy, as both fossil fuel and wind production had expanded dramatically during his tenure.

Most notably, Perry increased the state’s reliance on fossil fuels. Between 2000 and 2015, natural gas production in Texas rose 42%, while oil production rose 280%. Additionally, hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drillings increased tremendously in South Texas: the megalithic fracking project in Eagle Ford Shale, which is visible from space, began in 2008. Additionally, Perry signed a bill that saved drillers billions of dollars in avoided payments, by, of course, giving them a permanent tax break for “high cost” natural gas.

Perry also advocated for the expansion of the Texas coal industry during his time as governor, even while other states had stopped permitting new coal plants due to pollution concerns. Instead, Perry signed an executive order in 2005 that would have rapidly approved the permits for 11 coal plants. Thankfully, this plan failed.

While Perry did push for the expansion of fossil fuels within the state, he also bolstered Texas’ growing wind power sector. Wind farms only generated approximately 116 megawatts of capacity on the state’s main

electric grid in 2000, but during Perry’s time in office, that number increased to 11,000 megawatts. While part of that can be attributed to technological and broader economic changes, Perry himself directly influenced the increase by signing legislation in 2005 that required an increase in the state of Texas’ renewable energy capacity by 5,880 megawatts by 2015. This number was greatly surpassed by the time he left office.

The catch is that job growth, not environmental concerns, motivated Perry’s investment in wind power. Former Texas energy regulator Barry Smitherman stated that “for us, wind development in Texas was never about climate change—it was about economic development and diversifying our portfolio.” Shortterm job growth continues to be Perry’s primary motivator as Secretary of Energy—given his disregard for the environment and the Trump Administration’s pro-fossil fuel stance, Perry’s policies will have frightening long-term consequences on our economy, our health, and our planet.

The Department of Energy is a bit of a Frankenstein’s monster, cobbled together from existing agencies in 1977. As a result, its budget consists of four main categories: the nuclear arsenal, nuclear waste, research, and typical energy programs. Approximately $2.5 billion dollars is allocated to promoting “America’s energy dominance through technologies that will make our energy supply more affordable, reliable, and efficient.” If the Secretary makes the decision to focus their efforts on the expansion of renewable energy and efficiency, they can enact a great deal of positive change.

Of course, Secretary Perry has

not done so. DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy recently received criticism for a high amount of staff vacancies, demonstrating his clear disregard toward the global climate crisis. Additionally, Perry’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has failed to meet more than a dozen Congressional deadlines for efficiency standards on a variety of household items, amounting to a gross negligence of his constitutional duties. It is absolutely unacceptable that the Department of Energy has ignored such vacancies and deadlines; this apathy stems from Perry’s disinterested leadership. The Secretary of Energy has the power to reduce America’s use of fossil fuels and promote sustainable solutions to the climate crisis. Past secretaries, such as President Obama’s appointee, American physicist Steven Chu, have actually upheld the Department’s mission of ensuring American “security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.” Secretary Perry has not. The bottom line is that we are collectively vulnerable to climate change, and Perry has not offered viable solutions—he has failed to protect us from existential environmental threats. The Department of Energy has the tools to combat our global climate crisis. We need a Secretary who will invest in resources and incentivize research to expand the American renewable energy market. Should Secretary Perry retire, we must demand his successor uphold the Department’s mission. Or, at a bare minimum, we must demand that the next Secretary believe in climate science.

SELECTIVE ABORTIONS: THE INTERSECTION OF DISABILITY AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

CRISIS IN OUR COURTS

Jungwoo Park

On May 28, 2019, the United States Supreme Court rejected a provision of an Indiana law prohibiting abortions on the basis of the fetus having a mental or physical disability. The justices wrote that their decision was based on the rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade and not in support of selective abortions. Although Indiana legislators wrote this law to push an anti-abortion agenda, disability-selective abortions do send a harmful message that impaired children are not worth having. Activists for the disabled community are fighting for an intersectional approach to reproductive rights, but the public discourse around abortion remains split between the pro-choice and pro-life movements. We must bring the topic of disability into this conversation and radically change our definition of body normalcy to create an inclusive society.

The types of bodies that are most frequently aborted reveal the larger social implications of selective abortion. In the early 2000s, Iceland introduced prenatal screenings that allow mothers to detect chromosomal anomalies before birth. The Landspitali University Hospital in Iceland revealed that close to 100 percent of Icelandic women chose to terminate their pregnancy upon receiving a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Other countries are not far behind: the estimated termi-

The pro-life movement exploits the disability rights movement by capitalizing on this issue of selective abortion. Advocating for reproductive freedom and protecting the rights of the disabled community should not be mutually exclusive. The solution is not to prevent the termination of disabled fetuses but instead to challenge the idea that children with disabilities are undesirable. The normalization of disabilities as deformities is socially constructed, which begs the question: what exactly is a disability?

nation of fetuses detected with Down Syndrome is 67 percent in the United States, 77 percent in France, and 98 percent in Denmark. The categorization of Down Syndrome as a serious congenital defect serves as justification for these abortions, sending an unequivocal message about which bodies are valued and which are perceived to be better left unborn.

The primary paradigm used to frame disabilities is known as the “individual model.” The individual model assumes the “problem” of a disability stems from the innate physical and psychological limitations of an individual. Able-bodiedness is seen as the standard and is used as a justification to fix, treat, or cure non-normative bodies with medical treatments and technological enhancements. The harmful notion that conditions like Down Syndrome are worth terminat-

“The normalization of disabilities as deformities is socially constructed, which begs the question: what exactly is a disability?”

ing is a product of the individual model.

People with “disabilities” have challenged these value judgements of their cognitive and physical capabilities. In the 1980s, the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation challenged the notion that disabilities are innate by introducing the “social model of disability.” This model posits that disabilities are caused by the way society is organized and makes a strong distinction between an impairment and a disability. An impairment is defined as having a defective limb, organ, or mechanism of the body, while a disability is the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by social structures. In other words, an individual may lack the ability to hear, but they are ultimately disabled by social institutions that exclude them from fully participating. This model rejects the concept of body normalcy and instead views all bodies as intrinsically valuable. Through this paradigm, people are not born disabled but are

disabled by social constructions that place more merit on certain bodies. The social model has the central goal of forming a society where everyone is given the equal opportunity to thrive regardless of the body in which they were born.

Although disabilities are socially constructed, it is inevitable that an ‘able-bodied’ person will have a social advantage over a disabled person. Prospective parents receiving a prenatal scan with the positive results of a disability grapple with the reality of raising a child with financial, emotional, and social burdens. Parents do not want to bring a child into the world who will face severe disadvantages and limitations. The social model is not oblivious to the current paradigm of disability that society operates within, but it challenges parents to embrace body diversity and love their children unconditionally. We should reject the tendency to hold preferences towards abled bodies during prenatal scans and work towards improving the lives

of people with disabilities. There is no simple resolution to reducing the high termination rates of impaired fetuses but the first step is to include the topic of disability within the discourse on reproductive rights. Selective abortions should not be conflated with the anti-abortion agenda, but they should not be overlooked. We must adopt the social model of disability to embrace physical and cognitive differences and support families and their children living with disabilities. An equitable society can only exist if human worth is not equated with able-bodiedness.

SUPREME COURT TITLE VII HEARINGS: THE FUTURE OF LGBTQ CIVIL RIGHTS HANGS IN THE BALANCE

CRISIS IN OUR COURTS

Heather Loepere

When Donald Zarda, a sky-diving instructor from Long Island, tried to assuage a female customer’s discomfort with being strapped to him during a tandem dive by telling her he was “100% gay,” he never expected to be fired from his job after the customer filed a complaint with his employer.

Gerald Bostock, a Georgia government employee who spearheaded a program to help neglected and abused children, was subjected to derogatory comments and criticism after joining a gay softball league— which, he alleges, culminated in him being fired on account of his sexuality.

Aimee Stephens was fired from the funeral home, where she had worked for nearly six years, after informing her employer that she is transgender. Not only was she told that it would be “unacceptable” for her to come to work as her authentic self, but also faced additional complications navigating her illness without health insurance provided by her former employer.

All three individuals are the sub-

jects of interrelated cases that will be heard by the Supreme Court on October 8th: Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., Bostock v. Clayton County, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. All center around a fraught question—does existing federal law protect employees from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality?

The broad potential ramifications of the cases in the current political climate have made them a flashpoint for advocates. Several groups, including NYC-based Housing Works, a non-profit committed to fighting homelessness and HIV/ AIDS, have called for mass demonstrations on the day of the hearings, hoping to apply pressure to the court.

Currently, gender identity and sexuality protections for employees have been implemented sporadically on state and city levels. Only 21 states, DC, and a handful of cities explicitly prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocates argue that this patchwork of protections does not fully serve the needs of LGBTQ workers.

The cases being heard by the

court on October 8th deal with federal law, which, if the cases prevail, would provide the basis to apply protections nationally. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex is illegal. Legal debate centers on the the latter attribute—what is meant by descrimination based on “sex.” The Zarda, Bostock, and Harris Funeral Homes claim that protection based on “sex” extends to gender identity and sexual orientation because discrimination on those two fronts is derived from people making prejudiced, sex-based assumptions.

Efforts during the Obama-era moved in the direction of offering these protections. In 2014, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that made it illegal for the federal government or federal contractors to fire or refuse to hire people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Later that year, Attorney General Eric Holder instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to apply a more expansive understanding of Title VII cases—transgender status as a protected characteristic under the “sex” clause was included.

The Trump presidency, however, has marked a stark departure from the Obama administration’s trajectory on these issues. In amicus briefs filed in the three cases, the Trump administration argues the opposite—that “sex” pertains only to the preferential treatment of one “biological sex” (defined as solely male or female) over the other. In other words, the DOJ argues that as long as employers treat two men in a relationship the same as two women in a relationship, they can equally discriminate against both without violating Title VII. In the case of trans employees, Trump’s DOJ has argued that Title VII “does not speak to … a disconnect between an individual’s gender identity and the individual’s sex.”

The arguments put forth in the briefs reflect a broader anti-LGBTQ campaign by the Trump administration, which has rescinded Obamaera guidelines outlining federal protections for LGBTQ students and has proposed a ban on transgender soldiers in the military (which is now in effect). Vice President Mike Pence particularly has aroused fears in the LGBTQ community for his anti-LGBTQ record as Governor of Indiana and mishandling of an HIV epidemic. In 2017, President Trump allegedly joked that Pence “wants to hang” all gay people. But the legal precedent that guided the Obama DOJ and the arguments of the plaintiffs in the three October 8 cases has roots deeper

than this most recent administrative turnover. As early as 1994, Northwestern University law professor, Andrew Koppelman, argued that laws discriminating against gays and lesbians were akin to sex discrimination as these laws “reinforce the hierarchy of males over females.”

A Yale law professor, William Eskringe Jr., takes Koppleman’s argument a step further in a recent article, published in the Yale Law review. Eskringe argues that “sex”based discrimination is inclusive of anti-LGBTQ discrimination because 1) prejudice against same-sex couples or trans people is a form of

CHILE: AN INVALUABLE CASE STUDY IN SCHOOL VOUCHERS

Pallavi Sreedhar

Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has been pushing to expand the school choice system in the United States ever since she stepped into office. However, DeVos’s efforts to create a federal voucher system have been the subject of intense political polarization and were rejected by Congress in 2017 and 2018. School choice

consists of vouchers, which are government-funded grants or tax credits that a parent can use to pay for their child’s education at a private school. They are based on Milton Friedman’s idea that increased competition in the education market would lead to better schools.

Vouchers have been implemented in the United States in a small number of cities such as DC and Milwaukee, but not a large enough scale to truly understand

the full effects of the voucher system. To gain a better understanding of the consequences and results of such a system, it is critical that we look to Chile, a country in which school choice has been implemented on a nationwide level. Studies of the voucher system in Chile show that an unregulated voucher system leads to unimproved test scores and greater achievement gaps between the rich and the poor. Only through heavily regulating their

voucher system did Chile improve its academic achievement levels.

From 1973 to 1990, Chile was ruled by a military dictator, Augusto Pinochet. Though Pinochet was known for committing a number of human rights violations, he also implemented a series of economic policy reforms with the help of a group of University of Chicago economists who studied under Milton Friedman. One of these economic policy reforms was the implementation of a nation-wide school voucher system in 1981. With a government voucher, parents in Chile could pay for a year of education at a private school––religious or non-religious, for-profit or non-profit. When the system was first implemented, the financial value of the voucher did not depend on income, and private schools that participated in the program could select which students to admit based on merit.

Following the implementation of the voucher system in 1981, the share of students in public schools fell from 78% to 50%. This occurred because students used vouchers to attend private schools, thus causing many public schools to shut down. Contrary to Friedman’s idea that the voucher system would improve schools, student achievement did not improve, and the achievement gap between low-income and middle-income families grew. Segregation between lowand high-income families also increased as the two groups began to

attend two different sets of schools. This general system remained in place until 2008 when former president Michelle Bachelet implemented a series of reforms to the voucher system to help restore equity in education. In 2008, the Chilean government under Bachelet passed the Preferential School Subsidy Law (SEP), which recognized that it costs more to educate students from low-income backgrounds. Under this law, vouchers for “Priority students,” which are

and income-based achievement gaps declined. The improvements are presumably because of the increased financial resources provided to schools that serve low-income students and the government accountability system, which required schools to increase test scores and to use their funds responsibly. Notably, however, segregation between low- and high-income students did not decrease within the first five years of the SEP implementation.

students in the bottom 40th percentile, were allocated 50% more money than those given to other students. In addition, schools that served a large proportion of “Priority students” would receive bonuses in funding from the government. To qualify for higher-valued vouchers and bonuses, schools had to agree that they would not charge “Priority students” tuition, would not select students based on academic merit (which would put low-income students at a disadvantage), and would participate in a government-administered accountability system. This system held schools responsible for their use of financial resources and for improving students’ test scores.

With these new regulations on the voucher system, data has shown that students’ test scores increased

There are two main takeaways from Chile’s experiment with a nation-wide voucher system. First, the failed voucher system in Chile after its initial implementation in 1981 shows that a free-market education system does not work without any additional regulation by the government. Milton Friedman’s idea of creating competition in the education market to improve schools might make sense in theory, but it fails in practice. The 2008 reforms by Michelle Bachelet transformed the voucher system of 1981 into a highly regulated system that counters Friedman’s belief that an unregulated education market would improve school quality by itself. These reforms improved student outcomes and decreased the achievement gap. However, the success of Chile’s post-2008 voucher system following 2008 cannot be used to justify DeVos’ plan, as it hardly resembles Friedman’s original proposal.

The second takeaway comes from the specific reforms that Bachelet made to the voucher sys-

“Segregation between low and high income families also increased as the two groups began to attend two different sets of schools.”

tem in 2008 that ultimately increased test scores and helped close the achievement gap. These reforms included a heavier focus on “Priority students” by increasing the value of the voucher for these students, prohibiting schools from charging these students, and prohibiting schools from selecting students based on academic merit. Another contributing factor to the success of the reforms was the government accountability system that drove schools to increase test scores and practice financial responsibility in their educational spending. These two specific aspects of the 2008 reforms––increasing funding for low-income students and increasing the accountability of schools––

are changes that can be made to any education system, regardless of whether it uses school vouchers. Thus, the United States should learn from the success of the 2008 Chilean reforms and incorporate the objectives of increased funding for low-income students and increased accountability in order to reduce inequality and improve its schools.

As long as Betsy DeVos remains the Secretary of Education, school vouchers will remain a polarizing debate in the United States. What has been made clear by the nation-wide system implemented in Chile is that the free-market system that Friedman envisioned (and that DeVos supports) fails to improve school quality. Additionally,

the improvement in test scores after the 2008 reforms to the voucher system should not be viewed as an unequivocal testament to the efficacy of vouchers, but, rather, a testament to the equality-minded reforms that were made. Therefore, whatever form of education reforms that the US undertakes should aim to focus on increasing funding for low-income students and increasing government accountability of schools to improve school quality. The voucher system experiment in Chile provides invaluable evidence of the results of a nation-wide voucher system, and the United States should use this evidence to shape the future of its educational reforms.

THE FIGHT FOR $15: DOES RAISING THE NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE BENEFIT ALL WORKERS?

Ariadne Xenopolous

On July 28th, the House voted to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. Although the bill ultimately failed to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, its victory in the House highlights a major shift in Democratic think-

brought agreement that a higher minimum wage is, if not a cure, then at least a protection against poverty and the inequality it fosters.

Seven states have passed legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 in the last four years. New York was a notable pioneer–– announcing the change in November 2015. At the time, the lowest minimum wage in the

such a budget change. The trade group found that roughly 75 percent of restaurant owners intend to reduce employee hours because of the mandated wage increases, while 47 percent said they’ll eliminate some jobs entirely. Efforts to offset the surge in labor costs did not stop there: 87 percent of owners needed to increase menu prices,

“At the time of its inception, the figure seemd unimaginable to Democrats and Republicans alike. Seven years later, the measure headlines the Democratic party’s campgain in the 2020 election; major contenders like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris have endorsed it wholeheartedly.”

ing in the last decade. The Fight for $15 movement first materialized as a fast-food worker strike in 2012. At the time of its inception, the figure seemed unimaginable to Democrats and Republicans alike. Seven years later, the measure headlines the Democratic party’s campaign in the 2020 election; major contenders like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris have endorsed it wholeheartedly. Recent years have

state was $9.60. With more than 1.5 million workers earning minimum wage in New York City alone, the measure transformed the operational structure of virtually every business. While labor costs once constituted roughly 30 percent of businesses’ revenues, after the legislation was enacted, the figure was closer to half.

Last December, the New York City Hospitality Alliance published a study examining the effects of

which prompted a loss of repeat customers for 34 percent of businesses. Across the city, restaurant owners are cutting costs wherever they can.

Operating a profitable business in New York is becoming increasingly difficult. Each year, rent costs become more exorbitant and businesses struggle to renew their leases. The widespread closure of retail stores following the explosion of e-commerce has left empty storefronts that

can only be filled by businesses in the service or food sector. The “Amazon Effect” has homogenized small businesses and engendered unsustainable levels of competition in the process. These factors, further exacerbated by the surge in labor costs, have devastated local businesses and made profitability all but impossible

In a nation plagued by staggering income inequality, the effort to raise the national minimum wage is a valiant one. 38 million Americans currently live in poverty, and immediate

action is imperative. However, to do so by selecting an arbitrary number, without sound economic evidence to support it, is a mistake. Small and midsize businesses will collapse under the costs incurred. Workers, the very people the measure aims to assist, won’t actually see increased income, since employers will be forced to cut hours or lay them off entirely. Moreover, the notion that a single, universal minimum wage should be implemented across the United States is facile. How can business owners

CREATING OPPORTUNITY IN RURAL AMERICA

Cameron Adkins

When talking to my peers at Columbia about rural America, I often hear the same distorted, stereotypical descriptors: uneducated, patriotic, conservative, religious, abandoned, and poor. Admittedly, some of these generalizations may hold true; rural Americans are, broadly speaking, more likely to be Christian, conservative,

and lacking a college degree in comparison to Americans living in urban centers. But these demographic realities should not always be portrayed as negative or shameful. It’s important to recognize the economic factors burdening rural Americans and appreciate the favorable elements that define rural culture—deep-rooted values that favor tradition, resiliency, hard work, and love of country. Even within the insular, urban bubble of privilege that is Columbia, I’m proud of

my rural American roots, and I encourage my peers to develop a more nuanced view of the places I and so many other students call home.

Rural America finds itself in a unique position, suffering from what economists call “the Great Divergence.” This term describes a fundamental change in the U.S. economy that has accompanied automation and globalization: as businesses have harnessed technology and moved production overseas, rural Ameri-

cans have been left behind. The Roanoke Times captures this phenomenon with an eloquent metaphor:

“If auto factories in Detroit were humming, then they were burning coal from Appalachia, so jobs in one place translated into jobs in another. Now the economy has been disconnected. Silicon Valley isn’t buying algorithms from digit factories in Martinsville; it’s simply thinking them up on its own. As we’ve moved from an economy based on natural resources to one based on information, the cities with the best-educated workforces have prospered—and rural areas

of perceived neglect from establishment candidates. Regardless of one’s opinion of Trump’s campaign style, I think it’s important to understand why he resonated with rural Americans. Many appreciated his offthe-cuff style and eschewal of political correctness. When it comes to Trump’s policies, the story is complicated. In the first 30 months of the Trump administration, roughly 500,000 manufacturing jobs were added to the U.S. economy, outpacing growth during the last 30 months of the Obama administration by 170%. Moreover, in rural counties that voted overwhelm-

he will negotiate a better deal with China. But as tariffs continue to rise, at what point will these farmers break? The answer will be massively consequential in the 2020 election, especially in key swing states with large rural populations like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

How have the Democrats been responding? The 2020 Democratic candidates with the most ambitious ideas to support rural America are those from rural areas, such as Representative John Delaney and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. These candidates may not be getting quite as much attention from the mainstream me-

with fewer highly-educated workers have been left out of the economy.”

Because of this vulnerable economic position, many candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have come forth with policies to entice rural voters, who comprise 20% of the U.S population. But winning these votes will be no easy feat. In the 2016 general election, rural voters sided with President Donald Trump by an overwhelming margin—62% to 34%—which begs an important question: how have President Trump’s policies affected the rural economy? And are rural voters even interested in voting for a Democrat?

In 2016, rural Americans looked favorably on Trump’s status as an outsider, having suffered years

ingly for Trump, unemployment rates have dropped significantly since his inauguration. Whether or not Trump’s administration can credibly claim sole responsibility for these trends is up for debate. However, as the saying goes: “people vote with their wallets.”

Other policies and statistics are less favorable for Trump’s 2020 pitch to rural Americans, such as Trump’s trade war with China, which has directly hurt the American agricultural industry. Since the beginning of the trade war, estimates suggest that Chinese imports of American agricultural goods have decreased by 50%, from 19.5 billion dollars to 9.2 billion dollars. Current polling shows that farmers are sticking with Trump, at least for now, hoping

dia, but their proposals should still be analyzed. Even if they don’t win the 2020 Democratic nomination, they have the opportunity to influence the Democrats’ rural agenda, and possibly even Trump’s. On Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign website, he lists one of his nine key issues as “Unleashing Rural Opportunity,” and writes that “Rural America is brimming with possibility.” Within this plan, he proposes many specific provisions to unlock the potential of rural America, including what he calls “Regional Innovation Clusters.” The plan would provide up to $500 million in federal funding towards the growth of rural business and “match one dollar in federal grant funding for each dollar of state or private investment

“Placing elections and politics aside, I remain deeply concerned about “the Great Divergence” and the long-term viability of the rural American Economic Model. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but an American one.”

(up to $100,000 per opportunity).”

Buttigieg’s policy could help rural America, and its intention to bolster business in distressed area closely resembles the intentions of Trump’s “Opportunity Zones” created in his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Thus far, the results of “Opportunity Zones” appear positive when comparing yearly change in property redevelopment transactions to both prosperous areas and areas that met criteria to be established as an “Opportunity Zone” yet were not chosen by their state’s government. However, it should be noted that many other variables are not included in this study, so the actual results may be unclear: only time will tell.

In addition, Buttigieg’s plan would grant $200 million in federal

funds to support state and local governments in creating their own approaches for economic development. Instead of having distant federal bureaucrats dictating how to strengthen rural economies, Buttigieg wants to support rural Americans in finding their own solutions. As a rural American, I believe this specific provision taps into a key strategy in revitalizing the rural American economy, allowing individual areas to take advantage of the very resources that make them distinct.

Placing elections and politics aside, I remain deeply concerned about “the Great Divergence” and the long-term viability of the rural American economic model. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but an American one. Without investment in education programs,

public health initiatives, and rural infrastructure projects, rural America will not share in the benefits of a technologically advanced economy. This will only further polarize the country geographically and could threaten the basic fabric of American unity. So I’m glad that rural Americans are finally getting the attention and respect they deserve in the national dialogue, but for so many of my fellow West Virginians, this is not a political conversation—this is real life. It’s time to start treating these issues with the urgency they demand.

EGYPTIAN PROTESTS: REMNANTS OF REVOLUTION

Raya Tarawneh

Egypt’s President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, came into power in 2013 following a military coup that removed the first post-Arab Spring and first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi. El-Sisi was elected president in 2014, and then to a second term in 2018. While el-Sisi was expected to stand down in 2022, in April 2019 the Egyptian parliament approved constitutional amendments that would extend the president’s term from four to six years, supposedly allowing for two sixyear terms. However, the constitutional changes also included a special article that very conveniently permits el-Sisi to extend his current term by two years and then serve another term until 2030.

official statistics. President el-Sisi’s government left no room for low turnout, and Cairo was buzzing with activity as a result: street vendors were urged to put up banners demonstrating support for el-Sisi. Free rides were offered to and from polling stations, and free subsidy boxes of groceries were handed out to voters in poorer neighborhoods.

“The lingering echoes of the popular 2011 chant demanding ‘bread, freedom, and social justice’ had apparently been silenced. That is, until September, when mass anti-government protests broke out––reminicent of a not-so-distant past.”

The bill garnered overwhelming support in parliament. Of the 554 parliamentarians that attended the session, only 22 voted “No,” and 1 abstained. Four days later, turnout for a referendum implementing the proposed amendments equaled roughly 44% of 61 million eligible voters according to

Any hint of opposition was prohibited; only support for the amendments was tolerated. The opposition ––which appeared to be virtually nonexistent–– was banned from participating in debates regarding the amendments. No demonstrations were authorized, and no media outlets were allowed to cover unauthorized demonstrations. Tahrir Square, the emblem of Egyptian revolution and the site of mass protests less than a decade ago, was blanketed with posters endors-

ing the constitutional amendment. The lingering echoes of the popular 2011 chant demanding “bread, freedom, and social justice” had apparently been silenced. That is, until September, when mass anti-government protests broke out––reminiscent of a not-so-distant past. Beginning on September 20th, Egyptian demonstrators in different cities took to the streets to demand el-Sisi’s resignation, frustrated with his authoritarian rule. These mass protests were met with mass arrests. More than 2,000 protesters were detained and many others were tear-gassed. The crackdown was coupled with a series of cyberattacks on Egyptian activists, journalists, academics, and members of civil society. In an effort to suppress anti-government sentiment, authorities also concocted pro-government pseudo-protests of their own. This involved recruiting sympathizers of the regime, including civil servants and government employees, who were enticed with free meals and days off work––much like the free rides and subsidized

groceries offered during the referendum in April. The counter-protests had a celebratory nature, characterized by cheering, dancing, and flag-waving.

Clampdowns on peaceful protest are commonplace in Egypt (protesting has been formally illegal since the military coup of 2013) and are largely propelled by an iron-fisted ruler’s fear of dissent in any form. This suppression has been deeply ingrained in the Egyptian political sphere. One article in The New York Times titled “Rethinking Trump’s Favorite Dictator” proposes “Mubarakism” as a term for el-Sisi’s rule (Hosni Mubarak ruled for almost thirty years with no end in sight before being overthrown in 2011). President el-Sisi’s extensive crackdown comes out of fear that the events of 2011 will repeat

themselves, interfering with his plans to rule for life like Mubarak before him. While some of the primary demands of the 2011 revolution were, without a doubt, the establishment of the rule of law, freedom of speech, and an end to corruption, it was enduring poverty that first brought Egyptians to the streets––specifically due to soaring bread prices coupled with an equally burgeoning unemployment rate. Today, nearly 30% of the Egyptian population lives in poverty. The government has adopted severe austerity measures since its $12 billion dollar loan from the IMF in 2016. And the 2019 protests are a testament to the declining standard of living after three years of austerity. President el-Sisi’s government has used both the carrot and the stick in

dealing with the protests: despite the severe crackdown on dissent, el-Sisi has vowed to reintroduce subsidies for around two million Egyptians. While this is an attempt to alleviate the frustrations of the Egyptian people, it is worth asking whether such small gestures will suffice in a country plagued by corruption, poverty, and youth unemployment. In addition to subsidies, government officials have made vague promises of political and social reform, yet it is hard to imagine that such desultory remarks will hold any value, especially in light of recent events. How many more broken promises can the Egyptian people endure? How many more contradictions will Tahrir Square witness?

FOR MORE ARTICLES, VISIT US ONLINE @ CPREVIEW.ORG