CPR Fall 2016

columbia political review CPR Vol. XVI

||

No. 3

2016

presidential election issue

Featuring interviews with Mark Lilla on Political reaction Michael Miller on campaigns1

Editor’s Note

cpr Volume XVI, no. 3 masthead: Editor-in-Chief

Asha Banerjee

Publisher

Sophie Wilkowske

Managing Editors

Elif Coker Amanda Kam Shambhavi Tiwari

Design Editor

Theresa Yang

Art Editor

Michelle Huang

Senior Editors

Nora Bailin Brian Gao Peter Kalicki Anamaria Lopez Ben Pacho Kaveri Sengupta Catalina Piccato Matthew Zipf

Features Editors

Copy Chief Assistant Copy Editors

Cullen Barrett Dena Cheng Dimitrius Keeler Linsay Meyerson Maggie Toner Emily Burns Emily Clagett Jahan Nanji Christine Nelson

In this, the Fall 2016 issue of the Columbia Political Review, we take on the 2016 Presidential Election, just under a month away. This election, perhaps more so than the two previous Presidential elections which defined this current undergraduate body, has compelled CPR to ponder complex questions of what it means to be a student magazine, a journalistic press organization, and a campus organization. While we do not endorse candidates, we are highly aware of the responsibilities we have as an outlet for student voices. In putting together this print magazine, we undertook a social media “Get out the vote” campaign. And to all the readers holding this magazine before November 8, I urge you to vote. Just as CPR is an outlet and a forum for students to publish their voices and engage in conversation, voting is the most direct, most foundational means of changing the national dialogue.

If you disagree with me, as some no doubt will, I encourage you to flip through this magazine, where our brilliant body of student authors, and many CPR editors, write about voter apathy, gender in the election, and third party candidates. As an editorial board, while we wanted to make a larger effort to encourage voting and political participation, we decided that ultimately we should showcase the Columbia community that makes up the authorship and readership of this magazine. With that long, hopefully not too preachy introduction, I am very proud to present CPR’s Presidential Election issue!

In true CPR style, our first piece is not really about the election at all. We start our issue with Anamaria Lopez’s masterful piece on the Puerto Rican and Cuban communities in America, specifically New York City.

I am also very excited to present two interviews carried out with two of Columbia’s pre-eminent professors, Professor Mark Lilla and Professor Michael Miller. Senior Editor Matthew Zipf reviews Lilla’s forthcoming book The Shipwrecked Mind and interviews him about political reaction, the movements behind Trump and Sanders, the role of nostalgia in politics, and much more.

Meanwhile, CPR editor Dimitrius Keeler interviews Professor Miller, who teaches the popular course “Intro to American Politics.” With questions ranging from differing campaign strategies to the power of polls and the media, to gender in the election, this interview is compelling and fascinating. Both interviews are must-reads!

Finally, the CPR Editorial Board put together a special feature on the election, as promised. We provide an array of Columbia student voices on various aspects of the election, rather than put together candidate profiles, which the American public likely knows by heart. Jake Naimark argues that Trump’s policies are a rehash of old American mistakes, Sreya Pinnamaneni covers the double-standard facing female politicians, Brody O’Connor breaks down the allure of third-party candidates in the election, and CPR’s Lindsay Meyerson discusses voter apathy.

We hope that these articles provoke, astonish, perplex… and just make you think. (Vote!)

CPRegards, Asha Banerjee, Class of 2017 Editor-in-Chief

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed herein belong to their authors and do not necessarily

reflect those of the Columbia Political Review, of CIRCA, or of Columbia University.

2

An affiliated publication of:

FALL . 2016 Table of Contents Cover Story 16 2016 Presidential Elections Perspectives from Across the Spectrum

Articles 4 Diaspora Dilemma

Perceptions of homeland

among Pureto-Rican and

Cuban communities in America

By Anamaria Lopez

8 Book Review :

The Shipwrecked Mind

By Matthew Zipf

Interviews

12

Mark Lilla on Political Reaction

22 Michael G. Miller on Campaigns

with Matthew Zipf

with Dimitrius Keeler

3

columbia political review :: fall 2016

DIASPORA DILEMMA Perceptions of homeland among Puerto Rican and Cuban communities in America

The year 2016 has brought transformation and instability to nearly every corner of the globe, and the Caribbean islands have been no exception.

This year, the Obama administration has made significant headway towards the reestablishment of diplomatic and commercial ties between the United States and Cuba, bringing an end to over 50 years of antagonisms.

Though this development has generated optimism about the Caribbean’s economic and political future, it has been counterbalanced by the worsening debt crisis in Puerto Rico and the United States federal government’s lukewarm attitude towards intervention on Puerto Rico’s behalf.

As each island’s population grapples with the consequences of decades of exploitative, post-colonial policies, bloated governments fraught with corruption, and an inability to spur healthy economic development at home, thousands of Puerto Ricans and Cubans are being forced to make a choice: will they remain in their homeland and continue to hope for a better future, or emigrate to the Unit4

Anamaria Lopez

country. For Puerto Rican and Cuban communities in the United States, the pull homeward is almost impossible to ignore, given how close their homelands are to the regions of the US in which they live. While distance may pressure immigrants from other countries to readily embrace assimilation, Puerto Ricans and Cubans are ed States and actively pursue one? A constantly faced with the reminder of great many Cubans and Puerto Ri- what they have left behind. cans have ultimately decided on the latter course of action, and the result The term “diaspora” is most often has been the onset of the some of the linked to the Jewish or Armenian diashighest emigration rates in each na- poras, as the histories of these groups tion’s history. best fit our typical conception of the phenomenon. Columbia University’s The economic and political conse- own William Safran, a prominent quences of this exodus are profound. scholar in this field, has gone so far as As all of those wealthy and educated to posit a set of conditions that must enough to make a living in the Unit- be met in order for a population to be ed States—including doctors, lawyers, considered in diaspora. Among these academics, and entrepreneurs, among are the obvious—physical dispersal countless others—move to the Unit- from a homeland—as well as more ed States, where can those remaining subtle attributes, such as refusal to aslook for the knowledge, leadership, similate with the “host” country, idealand innovation necessary to rebuild ization of the homeland, and the hope their societies? An additional ques- of eventual return. tion surfaces in the wake of this mass migration: how will large-scale em- While Safran’s definition cannot be igration of Puerto Ricans and Cu- viewed as absolute, it does provide a bans from their homelands shape the useful benchmark for evaluating the cultural identity of these populations, diasporic characteristics of a commuboth in the Caribbean and stateside? nity. According to this point of reference, both the Puerto Rican and CuEvery immigrant community is ban communities in the United States forced to balance its desire to maintain are populations in diaspora. Each popcultural traditions from the homeland ulation has taken on diasporic characwith the need to integrate into a host teristics in different ways—economic,

columbia political review :: fall 2016 social, political, and even geographic factors have influenced the ways in which Puerto Ricans and Cubans relate to their places of origin, as well as to the United States.

While differing circumstances have compelled each population to leave their home for the United States, the root causes are strikingly similar and grounded in centuries of colonialist policy. Immigration to the United States from Puerto Rico has been frequent since the island first came under U.S. rule after the Spanish-American War in 1898. Puerto Rico’s territorial status allows its residents to move to any other U.S. territory without a visa or passport, which makes life in the United States fairly accessible for Puerto Ricans seeking greater economic or educational opportunities.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, the island’s underdeveloped economy and widespread political strife over the issue of Puerto Rican independence compelled citizens to emigrate en masse.

Not until the implementation of Section 936 of the United States Tax Code, which afforded a tax exemption to all profits originating in the United States territories (as opposed to states), was the Puerto Rican economy robust enough to provide jobs and stable incomes to a majority of its citizens. But the victory was short-lived; the Puerto Rican manufacturing industry was almost entirely dependent on a section of the tax code that was deeply unpopular, as citizens stateside considered it a way for big corporations to cheat on their taxes. In 2006, the boom came crashing down when Section 936 was repealed. Puerto Rico has been suffering a severe economic recession ever since, and the economy

continues to shrink each year. Consequently, emigration is on the rise and has only increased more dramatically since the Puerto Rican government defaulted on its debt payments in 2015.

Thus the expansion of the Puerto Rican diaspora due to high emigration rates can be directly linked to the U.S. federal government’s exploitation of the island’s resources and citizens.

try.

Cuba’s economy was largely reliant on the U.S. sugar industry and, as a result, collapsed following the implementation of U.S. sanctions. Limited numbers of political and economic refugees were able to move to the United States in subsequent years to avoid the political unrest and economic turmoil, and some were granted U.S. residenThe history of Cuban immigration to cy through an immigration program the United States is markedly different referred to as the Cuban Lottery. The from that of Puerto Rico, but has no- origin story of the Cuban diaspora table commonalities, particularly with echoes that of Puerto Rico. Economic regards to the United States’ role in policy and aggressive political interdriving emigration. While Cuba was vention from the U.S. federal governofficially granted independence after ment contributed to the destruction the Spanish-American War, the Platt of the Cuban economy and motivated Amendment of 1901 effectively ren- thousands of Cuban citizens to leave dered the country subject to United their homeland behind in hope of a States rule. For 60 years, the United more stable life in the United States.

States used Cuban land and resources for the sugarcane industry and reaped In discussions of Puerto Rican assimenormous profits. ilation into United States culture, it’s important first to address the complex A series of corrupt U.S.-backed lead- relationship between the two. Officialers headed the government until 1959, ly, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth when the Communist Revolution, led of the United States, and all Puerto

by Fidel Castro, resulted in the rapid Ricans are born with U.S. citizenship deterioration of diplomatic relations and the right to move freely within all between the two nations. The na- U.S. territories. Puerto Rican culture, tionalization of industry that accom- however, is thoroughly distinct from panied the revolution alienated U.S. that of the continental United States, businesses, and the U.S. government and includes strong Spanish, African, responded by imposing a series of and Taíno influences not present in harsh sanctions that prohibit almost America. Thus, while we cannot refer all U.S. economic activity in the coun- to Puerto Rico as a homeland and the

5

columbia political review :: fall 2016 United States as a host country from a political perspective, the two regions are differentiated from each other culturally.

Puerto Ricans have carried their distinct culture to the United States, establishing enclaves in New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and countless other cities that retain the practices and values of life in Puerto Rico.

“Nuyorican” communities in Brooklyn, the South Bronx, the Lower East Side, and Spanish Harlem in New York City generally speak the same language, eat the same food, maintain the same religious practices, and participate in the same recreational activities as they would in Puerto Rico. While these communities have inevitably adopted some American customs, on the whole they seek to transplant the practices they left behind to their host country and resist total assimilation into the culture of the United States.

porters of business enterprise, capitalism, and the free market — economic notions that are much more at home in the United States than they are in communist Cuba. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2002, 64% of Cubans registered to vote identified as Republicans, compared to 22% who identified as Democrats. While there has been a shift towards the national average — by 2013, only 47% identified as Republican and 43% as Democrat — Cubans still stand far to the right of other Hispanic groups.

The differing degree of assimilation among Puerto Ricans and Cubans in the U.S. can largely be attributed to the environment from which each population hails. The Cuban desire to assimilate likely stems from the fact that most Cubans left the island under extreme political or economic duress of the Castro regime. Those who chose to leave are those whom the political and economic structure of comCuban immigrants to the United munism did not favor. It is no surprise, States are far more likely to active- then, that they do not idealize their ly assimilate into American culture. homeland or make efforts to maintain Cubans living in the U.S. have higher their connection with Cuba, as other average incomes, are more educated, diasporic populations often do. and are more comfortable speaking English than other Hispanic groups Cuba’s proximity to the United States in the U.S. Notably, the Cuban Amer- renders the idealization of Cuba even ican population is in general far more less likely. Because Cuba is so close to politically conservative than other Florida, where a majority of Cuban Hispanic and Latino populations in immigrants reside, it does not take on the U.S. Cubans are often staunch sup- the symbolic status of a mystical “land of milk and honey” for those who have emigrated. Given that many of these immigrants have also arrived fairly recently, the painful experiences endured in Cuba are too fresh in their memory to allow a common mythology about their homeland to develop.

Puerto Ricans living in the U.S., in contrast, feel some ambivalence but little animosity towards their home6

land. Many understand that the federal government is culpable for much of the political and economic strife on the island, and consequently do not feel the need to distance themselves from the local government in Puerto Rico. Furthermore, Puerto Rico is geographically far from the region in which Puerto Rican immigrants typically live: the Northeast. As such, Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. tend to romanticize life in Puerto Rico. For many, return is impossible, thus the homeland becomes la isla de encanto, a romantic myth in the Puerto Rican-American imagination.

As diplomatic relations with Cuba are restored and economic sanctions eased, the desire to return to the homeland has begun to gain traction among Cubans in the U.S., though it remains remote for their Puerto Rican counterparts. The prospect of return, once scorned by those who felt let down by their own government, has become newly attractive to a second generation of Cuban immigrants who have no first-hand experience of life in Cuba. The desire to return is grounded in the improving economic and social conditions, rather than an idealization of the homeland. Under Raúl Castro, the government has begun to incorporate elements of 21st century capitalism into Cuba’s communist society. As the private sector grows and human rights violations begin to wane, many Cubans who emigrated with no intent of returning have begun to reconsider. Return to Cuba appears to be an increasingly viable course of action.

Puerto Ricans, however, are unlikely to entertain ideas of returning while the island remains in a state of economic turmoil. The reasons for this are manifold: Puerto Ricans in the Unit-

columbia political review :: fall ed States have established communities that wed the practices, beliefs, and values of Puerto Rican culture with those of American culture. To be a part of a Puerto Rican community in New York or Chicago is not the same as being part of a Puerto Rican community on the island. For many, the connection they feel to the hybrid cultures they have formed in the U.S. is stronger than the affinity they feel for the island.

Additionally, while enterprise and investment are on the rise in Cuba, Puerto Rico’s economy has a long way to go to rebound from recession. The PROMESA Act — which enacted austerity measures to curb government spending and authorized the creation of a board to oversee the country’s debt restructuring — is a sign that progress may be on the horizon. At the same time, many argue that placing the future of the island in the hands of the U.S. Congress (in which Puerto Rico has no representation) and an executively appointed board (which may be more sympathetic to bondholders’ interests than to those of the Puerto Rican people) will only further propagate the same neocolonialist practices that engendered the debt crisis. As long as Puerto Rico’s economic fate remains ambiguous, most stateside Puerto Ricans will likely stay put.

In some ways, the distance between Puerto Ricans and Cubans in the U.S. and those in the Caribbean has become so pronounced that full reconciliation of the two communities seems impossible. Yet recent political and economic developments may turn the tide for the two diasporas. In Cuba, it appears that time has healed wounds. As the years have passed, the proportion of U.S.born relative to foreign-born Cubans has grown, giving rise to a genera-

ensures the island will be unable to find an effective solution to its economic woes. Forced dependence on the United States borne of restrictive trade has crippled the island’s economy, and a lack of representation in Congress leaves Puerto Rico unable to enact policy that can develop the diverse and healthy economy it so desperately needs. Time will tell whether the PROMESA Act can make good on its promesa to the Puerto Rican peotion of Cuban Americans whose rela- ple, but for now, it seems that Puerto tionship with the nation is much less Rican diaspora will only continue to strained than that of their parents and grow. grandparents. This generation is bearing witness to the reestablishment of Despite the tragedy inherent in the diplomatic ties with Cuba, and the ab- fragmentation of these cultures, there olition of economic sanctions may fol- remains a ray of hope. Puerto Rican low. As Cuba begins to look outwards and Cuban communities in the United for the first time in decades, economic States have had access to educational development and a gradually de-rad- and professional opportunities that icalizing government may lead many would not have been afforded to them had they remained in their homelands.

Cubans to return home.

This generation of educated, empowThe path for Puerto Ricans is less ered Caribbeans can use their station clear. The PROMESA Act is intend- to advocate on behalf of those who ed to provide a lasting solution to the were not able to make the journey to island’s economic woes, but skeptics the United States. They can work to have called it a “band-aid on a bullet ensure that one day, the education, stahole.” Austerity measures have his- bility, freedom, and opportunity availtorically had mixed effectiveness, and able to them in the United States will there is no strong evidence that they be available to every Cuban and Puercan provide long-term solutions to the to Rican, regardless of where they issues Puerto Rico is facing. The Act have made their home. also includes other stipulations to spur economic activity among businessAnamaria Lopez is a sophomore in es that come at a huge cost to PuerColumbia College studying Economto Rican people, such as lowering the ics and Slavic Studies and a senior minimum wage to as little as $4.25 for editor for CPR. Born in the San some workers.

Francisco Bay-Area and raised in a With regards to its political status, Puerto Rican family, she is interested Puerto Rico is in a catch-22: neither in studying economic development in Eastern Europe and post-colonial statehood nor independence is likely Latin America. for the foreseeable future because of She can be contacted at the crumbling Puerto Rican economy, al3509@columbia.edu. yet the current commonwealth status 7

columbia political review :: fall 2016

Mark Lilla: The Shipwrecked Mind BOOK REVIEW Matthew Zipf WHO is the Hillary voter? you have not asked. You have not needed to. If there is one, we know him, or are him.

Clinton’s followers, unlike Clinton herself, are transparent, obvious, and understood.

But who is the Trump voter? Open a magazine, and you will lear n that it is the essential mystery of our time, having exhausted the collective brainpower of the New Yorker. If you think he is simple, he is not. If you think he is alien, he is not.

The Trump voter, as a type, is shipwrecked.

“THE revolutionary spirit that inspired political move-

ments across the world for two centuries may have died out,” writes Mark Lilla, professor of Humanities, in The Shipwrecked Mind (NYRB 2016). “But the spirit of reaction that rose to meet it has sur vived and is proving just as potent a historical force.”

Yet for all the thousands of proclamations and theories and books about revolution, we have few about reaction.

Mostly, as Lilla writes, we have “the self-satisfied conviction that it is rooted in ignorance and intransigence.”

The reactionary, seeking to restore society to a lost golden age, is the “last remaining ‘other.’ We do not know him.”

With this gap in political scholarship, we have found ourselves ill-equipped

The reactionary, seeking to restore society to a lost golden age, is the “last remaining ‘other.’ We do not know him.”

8

to make sense of the reactionary movements that define our present. In the US and in Europe, from England to Hungary, the impulse to restore a glorified past has become ubiquitous without becoming legible. We see the reactionary, as Lilla notes, on both the right and the left, in the forms not only of Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orbán but also of extreme environmentalists and Sanders leftists.

Yet in most cases, we do not g rasp what we see.

By way of The Shipwrecked Mind, we now have intellectual discourse on reaction that is both serious and attuned to the political scene. Lilla, wary of broad strokes—the sin of both the reactionary and the errant intellectual—has produced a work that is modest in length but nonetheless illuminating.

It is a collection of essays

columbia political review :: fall 2016 on thinkers and ideological “currents,” tied together not by an overarching thesis or historical theory, but by an acute obser vation: The reactionary is stranded in history. With the metaphor of time as a river, Lilla imagines the reactionary marooned on the shore, looking at the shipwreck—the lost golden age—and wondering how it could be recovered. History, as the reactionary sees it, has broken in two, and he stands stuck in time and misery.

Our dark tour of political reaction begins with Franz Rosenzweig, a German Jewish theologian, whose work Lilla uses to frame the relationship of Judaism and Christianity to reaction.

Lilla writes, “Because he is an eter nal pilg rim, Christian man is alienated, feeling himself divided, as Rosenzweig vividly puts it, between Siegfried and Christ, and is therefore never fully at home in the world.” Christians, awaiting their redemption, are always en route. They are a force in history. But “the Jewish people,” Rosenzweig wrote, “has already reached the goal toward which the [other] nations are still moving.”

Forming a deep “blood-community,” in Rosenzweig’s words, Judaism has reached eter nity and escaped time.

With Lilla’s profile of Leo Strauss, we retur n home to the United States. Like the other scholars profiled, Strauss was bor n in Germany, but he moved to America at the age of 38. Through him, Lilla offers a lucid articulation of the reactionary’s outlook: “Strauss and Heidegger shared one large assumption: that the problems in Wester n civilization could be traced to the abandonment of a healthier, urmode of thought from the past.”

Strauss never wrote an essay on American thought, but

in the United States. “Where but in America,” Lilla asks, “could a teacher of esotericism, concer ned about protecting philosophical inquiry from political harm, find his books used to train young people to become guardians of an ephemeral ideolog y?”

In the second section of Shipwrecked, titled “Currents,” Lilla traces ideas rather than profiling individual thinkers. He opens with the essay “From Luther to Walmart” and retur ns us to the question of how Christianity relates to reaction, as he will do again in “From Mao to St. Paul.” Lilla theorizes about “mytho-histories” and rejects, categorically, the reactionary’s approach to history: “What help is it to imagine,” Lilla asks, “that ‘medieval Christendom failed, the Reformation failed, confessionalized Europe failed, and Wester n moder nity is failing,’ as if civilizations pass through discrete periods defined by a single ‘project’?” History, Lilla asserts, cannot be so reduced.

The final section of the work comprises two essays on French intellectuals, as Lilla draws on his time in Paris in 2015 and explores the intellectual aftermath of that year’s terrorist at-

The reactionary stands marooned on the shore, looking at the shipwreck— the lost golden age—and wondering how it could be recovered. he opened his book Natural Right and Histor y with a reference to the Declaration of Independence. Based on that opening, the media came to portray Strauss as “the master thinker behind the interventionist policy of democracy promotion developed by American neoconser vatives,” his work twisted to ser ve the ends of both neoconser vatives and those who wished to smear them. We lear n from Strauss not only about reaction but also about the perils of philosophy and how it can be misinterpreted, especially

9

columbia political review :: fall 2016 tacks. In discussing France and concluding Shipwrecked, Lilla continues the analytical project that he began with Rosenzweig, addressing the final Abrahamic religion: Islam. Unlike the aberrant reactionary movement in the United States, moder n political Islamism has an intellectual prog ram, and—perhaps more so than any other political challenge facing Europe—has demanded an intellectual response.

In France, the multiculturalists and the conser vatives, who have butted heads for years, have taken on that intellectual challenge posed.

But it is a new political character, Lilla writes, whose presence is of note: the reactionary. “The new reactionaries sensed an opportunity,” he obser ves, “and now they are finding a public that experiences a rush of recognition when reading their books, and liberation from a sense of being misunderstood.”

AS Lilla writes, the reactionary “feels himself in a stronger position than his adversary because he believes he is the guardian of what actually happened, not the prophet of what might be.” The reactionary, in short, fancies himself a historian. Lilla is one. Suitably, then, much of Shipwrecked circles the question of what history is and how we should think and write about it.

10

“Historians who offer ‘multicausal explanations’—and use phrases like that—do not last.”

For the reactionary, history is apocalyptic. He imagines a rupture in time and splits history into two eras: the golden age, before the rupture, and the fallen present. He seeks to pinpoint that single rupture, or in the case of the jour nalist Éric Zemmour, 79 ruptures, with each date, in Lilla’s words, “supposedly marking France’s decline.”

Lilla stresses how flawed this historical outlook is, for he sees that debunking apocalyptic history is key to debunking reaction. He reminds us in “From Luther to Walmart” that civilization does not consist of some “single ‘project,’” but it is in his profile of Eric Voegelin, another German thinker, that he most deeply explores the use and misuse of history.

“Crisis,” Lilla opens the Voegelin profile, “is the mother of history. Beginning

with Herodotus the urge to write history has been bound up with the need to explain the seemingly inexplicable reversals of fortune suffered by nations and empires.”

Unfortunately, complex histories, those closest to presenting the facts in a truthful light, have little appeal: “Historians who offer ‘multicausal explanations’—and use phrases like that—do not last.”

Voegelin, in his work up through the fourth volume of Order and Histor y, tried, like other reactionaries, to find the precise moment when civilizational decline began. “For Heidegger it began with Socrates,” Lilla writes, “for Strauss with Machiavelli, and for Voegelin, at least until then, it began with ancient gnosticism.”

But Voegelin changes course. He steps back, looks at his own approach, evaluates the basics of history. In Lilla’s reading, Voegelin’s transition hinges on the question of time: “What is it about consciousness, Voegelin asks himself, that makes us conceive of our experience in terms of beginning and end, rupture and continuity?”

He will not let us forget that history and movements in history always consist of people born into places, families, and cultures.

columbia political review :: fall 2016 We find in the reformed Voegelin not only a cogent, measured view of history, but also an intellectual of character. “It takes a good deal of self-awareness and independence of mind,” Lilla writes of Voegelin, “to renounce the bittersweet comforts of cultural pessimism and question the just-so narratives of civilizational decline that still retain their allure for Wester n intellectuals.”

Lilla’s understanding of the traps and pitfalls of history has doubtless informed his own approach as a historian. In The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics (NYRB 2016, 2001), the precursor to Shipwrecked, Lilla argues that intellectual history is better ser ved by a history of thinkers than by a history of ideas. In the former, we can find clarity.

In the latter, we too easily encounter contradictions that we must then choose between, leading us to tell alltoo-tidy stories.

The Shipwrecked Mind continues the format of Reckless. For each thinker profiled, Lilla offers a mechanical sentence, often to open the essay: “Eric Voegelin was bor n in Cologne in 1901 and left Vienna when he was nine.” “Foucault was bor n Paul-Michel in Poitiers in 1926.” “Walter Benjamin was bor n into a well-off family of Berlin Jews in 1892.” And so on, with each line remind-

ing us that thinkers are people, too.

Lilla’s essays glow in their range of reference, as he is able to prove the improbable, to draw lines from Luther to Walmart, from Mao to St. Paul. But he always begins on the g round, with the most basic of facts. He will not let us forget that history and movements in history always consist of people bor n into places, families, and cultures.

THE TRUMP campaign is atypical as a reactionary movement in that it offers little in the way of an intellectual prog ram, but its slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is the reactionary impulse distilled, pure and simple. To borrow Lilla’s terms, it embodies the “cultural pessimism” and “apocalyptic thinking” that define reactionary politics.

In tur n, Clinton’s response to the Trump slogan—“America is g reat because America is good”—is liberal confusion distilled, pure and simple. We face Trump nonplused, finding ourselves hindered by an inability to articulate when, exactly, society is good and how we would know that.

In an inter view with Lilla, WNYC’s Brian Lehrer approached the question from afar: “Russia is such an interesting case, because an American would assume that life for the average Russian

is better now than it was under Communism, but apparently there’s a nostalgia that seeks to replace the authoritarian leadership, and we get Putin.”

Lilla responded, “We think in terms of well-being, how much income has gone up, and job opportunities.

What the reactionary understands—and the conser vative does as well, in a different way—is that people have other collective aspirations and feelings. They want to feel that they belong to some g rand project.”

It remains an open question, raised by Trump and Clinton alike: When is society good? In The Shipwrecked Mind, Lilla cites a line from Ecclesiastes, “Say not, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.” But there is another line, from later in the book, that among the circular patter ns of revolution and reaction may offer some truth: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”

Matthew Zipf is a senior editor and Swiss-American. He covers European politics for the Review, with a focus on conservative movements. In his second year, he studies computer science and history. His email is matthew. zipf@columbia.edu.

11

columbia political review :: fall 2016

AN INTERVIEW WITH PROF. MARK LILLA Matthew Zipf, CPR: You discuss how reactionaries appear now on the far left as well as on the far right.

So in the United States, how should we think about, and classify, Trump and Sanders?

Trump is different. He is vague about his ideas, which means that people can project their fantasies onto him of what it would mean to opened up in time, and that recapture something from it has become impossible to the past. live in the present. He believes that either one has to But on the other hand, when go back to some glorified it comes to revolutionaries, past—or rather, one’s glo- the less they say, the more rified idea of the past—or successful they are. If you one has to leap ahead and look at the utopian socialcreate a world where some- ists of the 19th centur y, thing from the past would like Saint Simon, Fourier, be rebor n. or Auguste Comte, they had ver y elaborate pictures Both Trump and Sanders of what the future would can appeal to this apoca- look like. The more they lyptic way of thinking. I said, the more absurd they wouldn’t say that all the looked and the less convincpeople who voted for them ing they were. Whereas, the were like that. But certain- most Marx and Engels said ly the refrain, “Make Amer- is, you’ ll fish in the mor nica Great Again,” lets the ing and criticize in the afimagination run away with ter noon. So the less said, ideas of, well, what Amer- the better. Trump is using ica? What is Trump refer- that strateg y, which makes ring to? Some people have him interesting. clear ideas about that; others don’t. So they’ re figures On the Sanders side, the who can attract reactionarBut certainly the ies.

Mark Lilla, Professor of Humanities, Columbia University: The movements Trump and Sanders lead are inspired by a reaction to the present that is not a reaction in the ordinar y sense. By reaction, I do not mean to simply be frustrated with things in the present. You can be frustrated with things, think they need to be changed, and even have some ideas about precedents historically, but not be a reactionar y. There’s a meliorist refor mism that, while e xpressing frustration, takes the present as it is, and understands the limits of what we are and If you look at strong reactionar y movements, like what we can do. political Islamism today or The reactionar y is more rad- 20th-centur y Fascism, the ical. He thinks that some- leaders had ver y clear ideas how there has been a break of what they wanted to do: in histor y, that a chasm has They wanted to go back to 12

Sharia law or create an ethnically-cleansed state run by paramilitar y means.

refrain, “Make America Great Again,” lets the imagination run away with ideas of, well, what America?

columbia political review :: fall 2016

Now, to reject the present is respectable, sometimes necessary, and often noble. But the reactionary abdicates responsibility for analyzing the present. political nostalgia that I see in Sanders himself—I don’t know how much in his movement—is for a time when the left meant a certain thing. That nostalgia for the left itself seems to him as important as doing anything in society. He is still stuck in his ‘70s view of what America’s problems are, what our psychological condition is, what the world economy is like, and so on. It is evident that he is unwilling to begin with the hand that we’ve been dealt politically and economically. He’s steeped in ‘70s nostalgia. As someone who g rew up in the ‘70s, I went to college with guys like this. Some of his followers from that generation share his nostalgia, but young people who have no idea of that time and are just dissatisfied with the present. What young people do seem attached to are the idea of the left on the one hand, and noble defeats on the other. On the left, a noble defeat always counts more than a victor y.

MZ: One of the driving factors in both The Shipwrecked Mind and The Reckless Mind

is Czeslaw Milosz’s observation that our “fate could be influenced by intricate and abstruse books of philosophy.” When it comes to a candidate like Trump, who’s so unintellectual, is there a still connection to these “abstruse books”?

What’s their impact?

ML: No, I think he’s something preliterate. He appeals to people who are not comfortable with arguments and discourse. I don’t think there are ideas there.

But, were he to be elected, he would have to rely on thinking people to actually get things done. Demagogues eventually find a consigliere, an ideological Savonarola to actually run things.

History doesn’t have a moment when everything breaks, when everything falls apart, when we cease to be what we were.

That’s not the way history works.

The question then is who those people would be and what sort of ideas they would have. Hitler and Mussolini, unlike Trump, were both literate and had ideas, but they still required a whole intellectual class to develop a political prog ram. It’s fascinating to see which people on the right of the intellectual class have genuflected and are becoming shills for him. The question, again, is what kind of ideas they’ ll bring. An interesting case is Newt Ging rich, who’s always seen himself as an idea-man, and not only as an on-the-g round politician. He’s hovering around Trump. I think he’d love to be his Savonarola.

MZ: When is reaction constructive for society?

ML: Never, because this apocalyptic idea about histor y is simply incorrect.

Histor y doesn’t have a moment when ever ything breaks, when ever ything falls apart, when we cease to be what we were. It’s not the way histor y works.

It’s not the way human nature works. It’s simply not g rown-up to make that assumption about the world.

Now, to reject the present is respectable, sometimes necessar y, and often noble.

13

columbia political review :: fall 2016

If you’ re simply disturbed by ever ything in the present, then you’ re required to g rapple with it, and to think about how you would change it, which means being infor med and living within the situation we’ re in. But the reactionar y abdicates responsibility for analyzing the present. He wants to live either in the past or in some sort of future where the past is rebor n.

Trump is different.

He is vague about his ideas, which means that people can project their fantasies onto him.

g y of reaction. Once you’ve decided that the present is unbearable, and you think that there was a golden age in the past, the more you develop that idea of the past, and the more disturbed you are by the present. You enter into a vicious circle where the more you idealize the past, the more hopeless the present looks, which makes you appeal more to the past, and so on. That’s why reaction is such an intellectual trap.

MZ: Toward the end of The Shipwrecked Mind, you craft a distinction between Don Quixote, the reactionar y, and Madame Bovar y. This distinction helps e xplain many of their actions, but where do their different outlooks arise from? What inspires a nostalgic imagMZ: There’s a g reat epi- ining rather than a general g raph in The Shipwrecked one?

Mind, Randall Jarrell’s saying that “People who live ML: It all has to do with in a golden age usually go histor y. Emma Bovar y has around complaining how been reading way too many yellow ever ything looks.” novels, and so she imagSo how do we know when ines herself in all of these civilization is good? How possible alter native lives. do we measure it?

But those alter native lives are present at all times. It ML: In retrospect. It’s has nothing to do with histhe only way we can gain tor y. So the gap that she enough distance. What I perceives is between the liked about the Randall Jar- real world and an idealrell quote, the ironic obser- ized world that could e xvation, is that it points to ist at any time, whereas for something in the psycholo- Quixote it’s historical. Fic14

tion doesn’t inspire him to think about creating a better world. But rather, he believes it actually e xisted in the past, and then we were kidnapped.

MZ: It’s a question of what one reads?

ML: It’s a question of whether the ideal is historical or not. There is always a gap between the ideal and the real, and the question is how you cope with that.

If you see that gap as built into life, then you are prepared to deal with it. You can still think about an ideal. The question simply becomes how you can approach your ideal, even as you know it cannot fully e xist in the real. But to think that the ideal was realized once, and then disappeared, changes your frame of mind.

If you believe the ideal was once real, you believe it can be real again. Whereas, to live with the sense of the gap between the real and the ideal requires a kind of irony, but a productive irony. It doesn’t stifle action.

You need to be able to hold onto both the real and the ideal, because it is both a political mistake and, I believe, a psychological and moral mistake to give up either.

columbia political review :: fall 2016

MZ: In The Reckless Mind, you cite how Plato recognizes a connection between the love of truth and the love of tyranny. Does either of those play a role in reaction?

There is always a gap between the ideal and the real, and the question is how you cope with that. If you believe the ideal was once real, you believe it can be real again.

ML: Sure. Certain intellectuals are attracted to tyranny because the intellectual believes he has a key to all things, and can’t be bothered with having to build consensus. He doesn’t believe he needs to go out, say, and actually meet people in Appalachia and see what their concer ns are.

He doesn’t understand that he needs to compromise, to give constituents some things to get their votes for other necessar y things, like social ser vices.

The messiness of politics is something that intellectuals can have a horror of.

Tyrants convince them that they can skip over politics and transfor m the world over night. By tyranny, one can mean many things, but certainly it entails a kind of politics that does not require consultation of the gover ned.

MZ: In the same book, you address the role of intellectuals in politics. As a historian, public intellectu-

al, and scholar, what do you see as your responsibility ML: Read the newspato society? per. I’m struck by how uninfor med students are.

ML: My responsibilities to They’ re simply not in the society are that of a citizen. habit of reading a lot of Intellectuals have no spe- things. It’s not a question cial responsibilities. Their of being able to jump in intellectual responsibilities and read a long-for m article are to the truth. I have no about something. It’s about idea what the ter m intellec- the daily work of simply tual political responsibility reading the newspaper and means. However, if you have lear ning a little bit about both a commitment to the ever ything, ever yday, in a truth and a commitment as publication that’s curated a citizen, there are going to by someone else, not your be times when those things own aleator y searching. conflict. You may have to do something or perhaps say Reading the newspaper or something that is not true reading political opinion in order to achieve a good magazines is a discipline bepolitical goal. The question cause it forces you to think there, as with the ideal and about a lot of things simulthe real, is whether you can taneously and hear different hold onto both of those. points of view. I’m stunned Whether you can hold onto by the fact that students do your idea of the truth and not read a physical newsstill be able to operate in paper ever yday. I find it ira world where the truth is responsible, unless they’ re not the coin of the realm. doing the same thing online by essentially reading ever ything. You cannot be MZ: For college students, taken seriously if you are what advice do you have to not infor med about a full help them navigate a world range of political phenomin which there are reaction- ena all the time. If you’ re aries and revolutionaries on not, you don’t deser ve to both the right and the left? participate, frankly.

15

columbia political review :: fall 2016

features

Turnouts and Letdowns Voter Apathy and Discontent with Candidates cent of those polled say that this election is not focused on issues or The 2016 Presidential Election is policy. Voters are much less able— a choice between the lesser of two in this cycle more than in others, evils. Donald Trump’s outrageous it seems—to make an informed statements, demeaning treatment choice, given how poorly each of of women, and questionable busi- the main candidates is perceived, ness practices presumably explain based on past actions and current why 57 percent of Americans dis- behavior. approve of his candidacy. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s poor choic- Even before the election between es in regards to the Iraq war and these negatively-viewed candidates, Benghazi, as well as her email scan- the US has suffered from a remarkdal, have led to a lack of confidence ably low voter turnout rate, pathetin her character and, likely as a ic for one of the leading democratic consequence of this, her 52 percent countries in the world. But the connegative rating. Both candidates fusion and disappointment of this will struggle on Nov. 8 to motivate election does not mean that Amerithe enormous part of the American cans should avoid the polls on Nov. public who feel that neither candi- 8. Rather they should—and accorddate really reflects its values. ing to many predictions probably will—turn out in larger numbers Amazingly, 57 percent of Demo- than ever. However, instead of decrats and 60 percent of Republi- manding one poor candidate over cans say that they are unsatisfied another, they should demand a canwith the candidates chosen by their didate they can support, a candidate party. More than 40 percent of all that they respect. They should ask Americans say that choosing be- of the primary system and of their tween Hillary Clinton and Donald fellow citizens: “Were these two Trump for the presidency will be nominees really the best we could very hard. The candidates chosen find?” And they should decide to do by the primary system clearly do better in 2020. not represent their respective parties. If that is the case, how can these individuals successfully serve Lindsay Meyerson is currently a the whole of the American people? freshman at Columbia College intendLindsay Meyerson

This campaign has proven to be a messy, unimpressive string of insults and interrogations over seemingly absurd allegations. According to a Pew Research Center study, conducted in July 2016, 73 per16

Woman at Work

Hillary Clinton and Gender Roles in Politics Sreya Pinnamaneni Hillary Clinton: Trouble maker or saint? For decades, she has been at the crossroads of two conflicting interpretations: She’s been named, on the one hand, too idealistic, too manipulative, too meddling, and on the other, ambitious, clever, and independent. Either way, she illuminates the pressures and stigmas that women face. For her and for other women, these microagressions and biases are the price of persistence.

From a young age, women are held to a higher standard of responsibility and stability than young men.

They are identified as flaky when they change paths, indecisive when they brainstorm, and hostile when they protest for their rights. There is a parallel to be drawn here with Hillary Clinton—criticism of her extends to her pro-Iraq war decision and her complicity in Benghazi, although these decisions stretched across many federal actors. Her policymaking skills are consistently evaluated by her day-to-day decisions, isolated and judged as separate letdowns; male politicians, on the other hand, are afforded a judgement based instead on through the cohesive narrative of their successes. Hillary’s cohesive narrative seems to get lost in the isolated criticisms.

ing to major in History and Political Science. She would like to focus on post-war Europe and the trends in American involvement in foreign conflicts. For more information, she can Microaggressions—subtle, hostile be reached at lem2208@columbia.edu. statements that intentionally or unintentionally undermine—become

columbia political review :: fall 2016 plainly evident during debates. Female competitors are often told to look sufficiently professional, since being “too plain” portrays a lack of ambition but being “too quirky” resonates as rebellion. They must speak at a balanced volume, since “being screechy” reveals psychotic tendencies but being “too quiet” implies timidness not conducive to decision-making. They are told to keep a balanced composure, since being “too aggressive” shows anger-prone cattiness but being “too meek” shows blind submission to others.

of combat is ethical.

For Hillary Clinton, merely breathing in public is a constant internal balancing act between what the public wants her to be and the platform she wants to advocate for. She must take a progressive stance towards domestic and military policy, to resist the idea that only men can play soldiers, yet she can’t be too strong, in fear of being the callous woman. She can’t be too rational, in fear of being calculating, and she can’t be too empathetic, in fear of being weak. With every stereotype that emerges—old, When Clinton is forced to walk this heartless, manipulative—there is an thin line,, it showcases the pressure accompanying comment on a physthat other powerful women face as ical feature. Clinton’s elderly age well. Several commentators have (When should she retire, anyway?) often criticized Clinton for exterior and “creepy” smile are viciously faults, ranging from overly bright mocked through viral videos inpantsuits to her tone of voice. Fox tended make her look unhinged and analyst Brit Hume went so far as to unpredictable. Yet when she tries to ask why she was “shouting angrily” seem connected – making ‘hot sauce’ after a victory. By using “tasteful” references paralleling a recent Bediscrimination, commentators have yoncé song or using social media to convinced themselves that their style appeal to the liberal youth, she’s now

features too desperate to even be in the game.

The emphasis on aesthetic features as a measure of Hillary Clinton’s intelligence and capability, as well as the negative way many of her qualities are seen, is not an accident: it’s a consequence of media bias against female physiology, and it affects the public’s perception of all prominent women. The thin line that women must walk and the threat that anything they do will be viewed as wrong would scare away most enterprising male candidates—yet Hillary Clinton stands to tell her tale. And maybe this fact—that she’s resilient, that she’s gotten through every misogynistic hurdle thrown at her—is why she’s so qualified to be President of the United States.

Sreya Pinnamaneni is a freshman in CC prospectively majoring in Poli Sci-Econ. She likes politics, education advocacy, RBG, and dessert, and is excited to write for CPR. Her email is sp3493@columbia.edu.

Throwback Trump Do Trump’s policies echo past American failures?

Jake Nalmark

Fearless, loud, and defiant: These three words embody Donald Trump’s candidacy for US president. His approach has deeply divided US citizens. Some fret that Trump’s unfiltered, zealous style would endanger the United States, while others see a candidate who can finally articulate their disgust with the state of the country. In the middle of this great divide, there are those few who admire Trump’s opposition to the status

quo and intellectual elitism but don’t believe he is America’s saving grace. Personal judgements about Trump’s character or temperament aside, a cursory look at US history reveals that from a factual standpoint, “Make America Great Again” is bluster without a backbone. The central tenets of Trump’s candidacy, as much as he portrays them as inventive and fresh, are reincarnations of calamitous mistakes throughout US history.

Trump’s infamous proposal to ban all Muslims from immigrating to the US is remarkably similar to the Alien Acts of 1798, instituted under America’s second president, John Adams. The Alien Acts were enacted as a response to widespread fear of a radical minority which was fighting overseas in the French Revolution. This legislation permitted President Adams to deport any foreign-born person living in the US without needing to provide justification. Not only did these 17

briefings

columbia political review :: fall 2016

“Trump has effectively boasted that he will modify a centuries old aspect of the US legislative and judicial system so that he can win money when he is publicly criticized.”

policies perpetuate stereotypes and intolerance, but they were met by resistance so fierce that the opposition movement, spearheaded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, is regarded as the inspiration for the later secessionist movement that sparked the Civil War. Jefferson and Madison helped pass two legislative declarations, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, in which the respective state legislatures declared that the Alien Acts were unconstitutional. They essentially aimed to undermine federal authority with state legislation. Madison feared that the Alien Acts would “necessarily drive these states into revolution and blood.” Yet, as the historian Gary Wills wrote, “Their [Jefferson and Madison’s] nullification effort...would have greater threat to freedom than the misguided laws.” In fighting systematic oppression, Madison and Jefferson inadvertently created schisms as dangerous and deep-rooted as the Alien Acts themselves. We need not look beyond the nation’s history to anticipate the unintended consequences that can result from policies derived and enacted out of fear.

voiced his anger at the criticism he faced in the nation’s media, proclaiming, “I’m going to open up our libel laws, so we can sue them and win lots of money.” In 1803, a precedent for US libel law was set when Alexander Hamilton concluded that an expression of belief could be the basis of a lawsuit only if “false, defamatory, and malicious.” Prior to this decision, libel laws could be used to sue reporters if their claims were defamatory in any way, without consideration for the truth of their reports. In 1964, a Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan reaffirmed the tradition that falsity must be proven in libel cases in order to win a lawsuit. If one considers the accusations about him to be true, then, Trump has effectively boasted that he will modify a centuries Last February, Donald Trump old aspect of the US legislative and judicial system so that he can win money when he is publicly criticized. Not only would he be promoting the use of executive power to overrule the judicial and legislative systems, but he would also be doing so in a manner that prioritizes his own ego and bank account over the established system and structure of the US gov18

ernment.

Another central aim of Trump’s campaign is to revitalize the middle class and fight trade violations by imposing 35 percent tariffs on Mexico and 45 percent tariffs on China. This proposal echoes the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Congress introduced the punitive Smoot-Hawley Tariff as an effort to promote domestic employment in the midst of the economic decline that lead to the Great Depression. Economists have since evaluated the tariff on a scale from “mistake that contributed to an economic downslide” to “the single most significant cause of the Great Depression.” Today, global markets play an even more substantial role in the US economy than they did in the 1930s, yet Trump plans to introduce an even more drastic tariff policy. Trump brags about his ability to bring jobs back to America, but history indicates that his plan would do nothing but exacerbate economic concerns.

Lastly, Trump has threatened to abandon two of the United States’ largest international commitments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He boasts

columbia political review :: fall 2016

that he will renegotiate the terms of NAFTA, or abandon it altogether if he is dissatisfied with those negotiations, and claims that he would only continue to send US contributions to NATO allies under certain economic conditions.

While his desire to hold US economic and militaristic alliances to a high standard is admirable, the notion of abandoning fundamental allegiances out of diplomatic dissatisfaction endangers the US in a way not seen since the aftermath of World War I. After the conclusion of that war in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson negotiated the League of Nations alliance in Geneva and returned to Congress with the hope that they would ratify the treaty and join the League. But members of Congress were dissatisfied with some conditions of the proposal and prevented the US from partaking in the League of Nations

altogether. Many historians consider this decision to have been a contributing factor in the ultimately dissolution of the League and the subsequent discord that would precipitate the onset of World War II. In 1918, the US Congress abandoned international diplomacy and cooperation and, in doing so, fueled animosity that would lead to the most fatal war in human history. While holding diplomatic relationships to high standards is essential, this must be done through dialogue and negotiation. The world learned early in the 20th century what can arise when the US forgoes communication and abandons allegiances with other countries.

We do not need Donald Trump to teach us this lesson again.

Our founding fathers often referred to democracy in America as an experiment—an experiment defined by an insatiable appetite

briefings

for improvement. On a superficial level, Donald Trump’s candidacy conforms to this American narrative, but examining the details of his ideas reveals their essentially regressive nature. Progress involves learning from failure, not simply repeating mistakes and expecting a second attempt to bring success. If hindsight is 20/20, the citizens of the United States must look to the past to understand that a future with Donald Trump as president would be contrary to this American endeavor of perpetual self-improvement. It would, instead, be a step into the past.

Jake Naimark is a freshman in Columbia College interested in Political Science and Environmental Science.

He is originally from New Hampshire and enjoys singing and any type of outdoor activity. He can be contacted at jgn2113@columbia.edu.

19

features

columbia political review :: fall 2016

Third Way? An Analysis of Third Parties in the 2016 Election ties provide this country. The most common answer is that third parties With record-high negative senti- offer a way for voters to show their ment towards the two major-party interest in a specific issue or small, candidates, there has been a surge of limited set of issues. Oftentimes, we interest in alternative voting options. see a third-party candidate bring neWhile many voters have likely made glected issues into the spotlight, in the decision to abstain from voting doing so inducing a major party to this November, others have begun to adopt that platform to gain voters. explore third-party options. Wheth- We saw this with Ross Perot’s heavy er Jill Stein of the Green Party or focus on the national debt in 1992.

Gary Johnson of the Libertarian But, when the major parties take up Party, third-party candidates have an issue, the third parties that first received more attention this election highlighted it are no longer needed cycle than in any since 1992. In dis- and have a harder time attracting cussion of third party candidates, supporters. As famed political sciwe can examine three things: the entist Richard Hofstadter once obbenefits of increased exposure for served, “Third parties are like bees; third parties, how those parties have once they sting, they die.” changed over time, and how they may affect the future of American However, what we see in this election cycle is fundamentally different. democracy.

Both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein Though America’s founding fathers offer voters a comprehensive platwere contemptuous of political par- form with a focus not just on influties, they ultimately accepted them encing major parties’ positions but as a necessary component of de- also on the possibility of actually mocracy. Since then, there has been controlling the White House. We in place a political system dominated see many voters, who are decidedly by just two parties. Thus, one might against supporting either of the maask what benefits, if any, third par- jor party nominees this year, instead viewing third-party candidates as viable options for president. Both the Libertarian and Green parties have launched full-scale efforts this election cycle to become lasting, influential parties. Both have presented comprehensive policy proposals that range from social and economic issues to foreign affairs, immigration and more. Third party candidates are offering expanded choices to voters: the fact that the Libertarian ParBrody O’ Connor

“Both the Libertarian and Green parties have launched full-scale efforts this election cycle to become lasting, influential parties.”

20

ty will be on the ballot in all 50 states and in Washington, D.C. demonstrates the additional options voters will have. These comprehensive platforms and the inclusion of third parties on many ballots stands in contrast to the traditional view of third parties as merely vehicles for forcing a specific issue into the headlines, with the ultimate aim of pressuring the major parties to adopt their desired policy stance. While some of the momentum enjoyed by the Libertarian and Green parties this election cycle has recently dissipated, culminating in both candidates’ failures to fulfill the necessary criteria for inclusion in the debates, the viability of their campaigns greatly exceeds that of most third-party campaigns throughout our nation’s history.

Though down from his peak of support, which, according to the RCP poll average, reached over 9 percent, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson is still getting support from about 7.4 percent of likely voters nationwide. His popularity among millennials is particularly noteworthy, as it indicates possible uncertainty for the future of the two-party system. As millennials continue to become more influential in the political world, it is plausible that we could see a significant change in the political status quo. The former governor of New Mexico, Mr. Johnson owes much of his appeal to the unique combination of policy stances that he offers to voters. A synoptic analysis of the Libertarian Party plat-

columbia political review :: fall 2016 form and Governor Johnson’s website paints a clear picture: a platform heavy on social inclusivity, while at the same time conservative on economic issues. His socially inclusive policies include support for gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose, the legalization of marijuana, criminal justice reform, and other progressive causes commonly associated with the Democratic Party . On a similar note, Governor Johnson has used his campaign as a platform to speak out against Wall Street bailouts and the lack of term limits in Congress.

While aligning quite well with Democrats on social issues, Governor Johnson largely agrees with Republicans regarding economic policy.

During the Libertarian Party Town Hall on CNN this summer, Governor Johnson talked at length about his promise to veto any bill that proposes an increase in deficit spending.

His platform indicates a strong focus the national debt and budget deficit. He often cites his performance during his two terms as Governor of New Mexico, when he cut taxes 14 times and simultaneously reduced wasteful spending, leaving the state with a billion dollar surplus. His inclusion in the election cycle this year offers voters a legitimate alternative option with well-developed plans for office.

Much like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein of the Green Party offers voters a unique set of stances that is distinct from that of either major party.

While Dr. Stein’s support appears to be lower than that of Governor Johnson, with an RCP average of about 2.6 percent, her campaign also

features

“The important takeaway of thirdparty performance in this election cycle is that they are beginning to become legitimate options for voters, rather than being absorbed by the Democrat and Republican Parties because they no longer represent a single issue.” offers voters an viable alternative candidate for president. The Green Party has historically focused on environmental issues, but, recently, there has been a transition from an agenda with localized interest to a more extensive one. Dr. Stein’s 2016 bid for the White House is the culmination of this transition. Far from just appealing to a niche of environmentalists, Dr. Stein has been a powerful voice for many issues, including anti-poverty programs, single-payer health insurance, diplomatic international relations, and domestic human rights, among other things. Dr. Stein’s “Power to the People Plan” provides voters with a thorough account of the candidate’s plans and objectives. She has proposed strategies for poverty alleviation, job creation, upholding basic healthcare rights, increasing the federal minimum wage, and a foreign policy agenda centered on diplomacy and international law. Her candidacy is far from that of the traditional, highly-localized third-party candidate, and a large step forward in offering increased choice to voters.

It is certainly improbable that either Governor Johnson or Dr. Stein will be in the White House come January; even so, they have set a strong

precedent for future third-party candidates running not just to “sting” major parties, but to win in their own right. The important takeaway of third-party performance in this election cycle is that they are beginning to become legitimate options for voters. We no longer see third parties being absorbed by the Democrat and Republican Parties because they no longer represent a single issue. Third parties have begun to position themselves in direct competition with the major parties.

While this is not an overnight process, the wheels are now in motion.

With several third parties developing a strong sense of how to legitimate themselves, independent forces in the political world—such as millennials increasingly supporting third party candidates—the possibility that we may soon see the collapse of our current two party system is growing.

Brody O’Connor is a sophomore in Columbia College planning to study Economics-Political Science. He has interned with the U.S. House of Representatives in the past and is currently active with several political groups on campus.

He can be reached at: bo2258@ columbia.edu.

21

features

columbia political review :: fall 2016

INTERVIEW with PROF. MICHAEL G. MILLER CPR’s Dimitrius Keeler asks Professor Mi- him during an already bad month for his chael G. Miller about election forecasting, campaign. battleground states and the future of American politics.

DK: As someone who has worked on campaigns in the past, what are your Dimitrius Keeler, CPR: Thank you for thoughts on Trump’s campaign strucagreeing to this interview. Let’s jump ture, putting so little emphasis on the right in. Do you think that the recent field organizing on the ground and report about Trump’s tax returns will fundraising? Does this change the genbe a problem for his campaign, or is it eral thinking about campaign strategy, more likely to blow over like the other or is it an anomaly that we’re unlikely to scandals we’ve seen this year? see again?

Professor Michael G. Miller, Political Science, Barnard College: As I see it, this will not cause much of a shift. If you are in the Trump base, this revelation is pretty easily spun. You can say that he has exploited the tax loopholes available to him, which is the sign of a good businessman. That’s certainly the line that the Trump campaign has taken. On the other side, if you’re a Clinton supporter you can say, “Ah ha! I knew it, he doesn’t pay any taxes, and it’s utterly consistent with what I thought.” So regarding the shift of public opinion, I don’t think we’re going to see a lot of that.

But the scandal is going to consume the most crucial resource that Trump has left, which is time. He will get at least a week’s news cycle on this. He’s going to have to do a lot of explaining because taxes are a very complicated issue. I think we need to stress that he’s done nothing illegal here, but most people don’t understand the nuances of the real estate tax code. There’s an adage in politics that if you’re explaining, you’re losing. This scandal is not going to help 22

weeks and then he’ll go completely dark.

That’s just not the way this should be done.

DK: Have you seen any improvement in Trump’s campaign as he’s cycled through campaign managers, going from Corey Lewandowski, to Paul Manafort, and now Kellyanne Conway?

MM: A major problem is that there are pretty clear factions within his campaign. One of the challenges he’s had MM: Most political scientists would as a candidate is that he seems to have agree that it shouldn’t be replicated these warring tribes in his own organiagain. When we forecast elections like zation, and he’s been unable to unify his this, we always start with what we call own people. That’s going to result in difthe fundamentals, which are the pieces ferent advice. For example, as a student, on the board that the campaigns really if you go to the professor and the TA can’t change. It’s just the way the game and get different pieces of advice, it’s is set up. Those are things like the econ- unclear who you should follow. Trump, omy and the popularity of the current a fairly inexperienced candidate, has president. If anything, those funda- proven himself to be susceptible to that. mentals really favor Secretary Clinton.

Everything we have seen throughout There’s something to be said about exthis election demonstrates to me that perience. The President of the United Trump’s unwillingness to engage in States seems to be the only job in Ameritraditional campaigning has really hurt ca where people are saying that the least him. If we look at the number of of- experienced person is the most qualified fices that the Clinton campaign has in for the job. battleground states, she has a massive advantage over Trump. We know em- DK: Can you speak to what you’re seepirically that the best way to get people ing in the electoral map and the polls out to vote is to interact with them in a coming out of various different states? high-quality, close way. Trump’s ability You have been analyzing specific votto do that is really compromised by his er registration figures coming out of strategy. several Pennsylvania counties. Are you seeing anything in the map that you find Secondly, his media strategy has been particularly noteworthy? unlike anything we’ve seen in a modern campaign, in that he goes in fits MM: I like to explain the map from and starts. He’ll be up with ads for two Trump’s perspective: to win this race

columbia political review :: fall 2016

features cover story

who have been voting like Republicans in the last several elections and are only now making it official. There is not a lot of evidence that Democratic voters are going away and being replaced by Republican voters. In fact, the evidence in many parts of the country suggests a Democratic advantage in registration, particularly in important places such reasonably expect Donald Trump to as Colorado and Philadelphia County. win maybe 90 percent of the counties Ultimately, these registration numbers in Pennsylvania. Clinton might take 10. yield no clear conclusion, and the whole She has definite targets that she has to election comes down to ten counties. meet in Philadelphia County, in Pittsburgh, and in Pittsburgh’s suburbs. Al- DK: Ten? legheny County, where Pittsburgh is, has more Republicans than any other MM: Ten counties in the United States county in the state so that will be be a will likely determine the outcome of real fight. If Clinton can win Alleghe- this race. It’s not an exercise in persuany County by roughly 53 percent, that sion, it’s an exercise in mobilization. So sets her up well, but she also needs to which campaign is better equipped to get people to vote in the city of Phila- identify what those ten counties are and delphia. It can be useful to look at Bucks mobilize people in them? That’s how County, a suburban Philadelphia county this works, and that’s why those field ofthat has been very close in the past and fices are so important. In addition to the will likely also be close in this race, as a counties that I have mentioned, Alleghbarometer for how the race might go in eny and Bucks in Pennsylvania, there is also Hamilton County in Ohio. If Lake Pennsylvania at large.

County goes for Clinton, she wins Ohio, I am also interested in registration to- and she wins the election—it’s that simtals, because they tell me as a forecast- ple. Within all of these states we can er what I can expect when I’m setting find these battleground counties and up baselines. Voter registration is also start forecasting how a state is likely to the first thing a campaign will look at. go based on the results in these counties.

I differ in this respect from other political scientists who focus more on polls. DK: How do media attention and deI approach this exercise as a campaign bates contribute to efforts to locate, perwould: I look at the baseline registration suade, and mobilize voters, and how do numbers because those numbers pre- these methods compare to campaign view how the county is trending. Jour- groundwork? nalists have been writing stories that suggest that Republicans have higher MM: The high-level media can direct voter registration this time. But actual- voter attention to the broader chess ly, in places like Luzerne County, Penn- board. The real role and power of camsylvania, while Republicans are regis- paigns lies in pointing voters to the tering more voters, they are primarily fundamentals. Voters don’t always have people who used to be Democrats and a good sense of how the economy is performing. If the campaign can clarify

“I approach this exercise as a campaign would: I would look at the baseline registration numbers because those numbers preview how the county is trending.”

Trump needs to win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. It will be almost impossible for him to get to to the White House without those three states. This puts Clinton in an advantageous position because all she really has to do is hold one of these and she will likely win the election. Two weeks ago, things were trending very well for Trump in Florida and Ohio, but now Clinton seems to have a lead in Florida. If the race ended today I think Trump would probably win in Ohio. In this case, if you’ll excuse the pun, Pennsylvania is the keystone state.

I think it’s the keystone of this election.

It’s also a very interesting state from the perspective of political democracy because you have these three major urban centers—Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and to a lesser extent, Erie—where Democrats really have to improve their performance. If you’re watching the election on that Tuesday night, and one candidate is called for Pennsylvania, I think you can go to bed. If we acknowledge that Pennsylvania is that important to the outcome of the election, then it is useful to get to know Pennsylvania on a sub-state level, down to the county level.

There is an adage among political consultants who specialize in Pennsylvania: in the west, it’s Pittsburgh, in the east, it’s Philadelphia, and the middle is Kentucky. This is an oversimplification, but it does accurately describe the voting demographics of the state. You can

23

columbia political review :: summer 2015 features

the broader state of the economy, they can connect the economy to preference.

It thus becomes an exercise in prognostication. Campaigns are actually pretty sophisticated at assigning correct forecasts to political candidates, and they use that information to persuade voters.

columbia political review fall 2016 cover ::story

third party candidate could have an interesting impact on this race, but after Johnson’s recent gaffes, it seems like a lot of that excitement has died down.

Is there anything still to be said about third parties in this election?

MM: Third parties are interesting, but most of my colleagues and I feel However, the act of mobilization is they are overblown in the media. The different from persuasion. The Clin- way that we elect people to the federal ton campaign is in the final stages of government and the state government what’s called voter ID, which means mathematically guarantees that we will that they’re using the voter file and the always have two parties. consumer file to predict how voters will behave, and then they’re trying to reach DK: This is called Duverger’s law, right? the voters they think will be supporting them to confirm their predictions. Once MM: Correct. Voters innately know this, every voter gets a grade, the campaign but the Libertarian voter faces a choice. moves to the second phase: get out the You can either vote your conscience— vote. This starts happening when early like John Quincy Adams said—and cast voting starts. Campaigns have legions the vote that you know is most reflective of volunteers contacting known sup- of your inner soul, or you can vote straporters to make sure they vote. That’s tegically, and cast a vote for the party how mobilization is accomplished: peo- closest to your beliefs who also has the ple standing on doorsteps, people mak- highest chance of winning. Once aggregated, this dynamic effectively assures ing the calls. that only two parties will be viable. To DK: A few months ago it seemed like a the extent that third parties might affect 24

the race, it depends on how persuasive they have been at convincing voters to make protest votes.

Then it’s a question of which candidate is losing votes to third party protest candidates. For this election, it’s not clear. In 2000, we definitely knew that Al Gore would be hurt by the presence of Ralph Nader. Today I think you can make a case that both candidates will lose votes to Libertarians. I have some theories about this, but for example I don’t see Gary Johnson winning electoral votes.

He may get above five percent of the vote, which would be a huge win for a minor party, but that’s about it.

DK: It’s hard to think of a scenario in which Bernie supporters, disillusioned with Secretary Clinton, would support a Libertarian candidate whose beliefs are so incongruous with their own.

MM: I’m not sure that I agree that Johnson is the polar opposite of Bernie Sanders. According to Libertarians, the appeal of the party is that every American is a libertarian. This is half correct.

columbia political review :: summer 2015 columbia political review :: fall 2016 Whether you are liberal or conservative, you can point to elements of the Libertarian platform that you find attractive, so that Bernie voters may have Libertarian views on the so-called “social issues,” particularly on things like marijuana or sexual behavior. If Bernie supporters prioritize those issues over economic issues, they could defensibly move in that direction. However, the larger problem is that we have reached a point where we are making unreasonable demands on our candidates.

DK: According to the Rational Actor Theory, voters choose candidates who most closely represents their beliefs.

How might voters’ motivations change to account for their non-rational feelings and emotions?

MM: Everybody comes to voting decisions differently. For example, I don’t demand to be inspired. I take a cold look as a voter at what the candidates say they’re going to do, and weigh that against how much I trust that they’ll do it. But everyone comes to his conclusion I think the some of the resistance to differently. There are people who will Clinton has emerged from the Obama vote strategically. There are also people years, in that the electorate now de- who will prioritize a single issue. There are a lot of ways to reach a voting decision.

cover story features there is no evidence yet—that super PACs are buying elections, or that candidates are breaking the law in a systematic fashion, but there are reasons for us to be concerned.

The cornerstone of Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United rests on the assumption that super PACs could function without coordinating with candidates. We are beginning to see some signs that the Justice’s supposition was probably naïve and that this is a problem that will need to be tackled.

In my opinion, Citizens United has actually had more consequences in state elections because in the states there is a much wider range of campaign finance

DK: Considering your expertise on campaign finance, can you discuss the potential constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United? What have the effects of Citizens United been from an empirical standpoint, and does the decision draw more attention and admonishment than it deserves? mands inspiration from candidates.

Potential Clinton folks are not finding her inspiring, and they’re making up reasons for being unable to support her, and they’re going elsewhere. I don’t have any empirical evidence for that, but it’s a working theory that I’ve begun to study. I tell students that voting should take five seconds, and it should be devoid of all feelings. Voters should think that this is the person who will advocate the policies that they think are best. We don’t need personal connection to the candidate beyond that, but we have recently begun to demand one. [Laughs] In this way, I guess Barack Obama ruined voting in the United States.

MM: I think it does get more admonishment than it deserves. It’s difficult to observe obviously corrupting effects.

You can reasonably argue that all money is corrupting, and since now there’s more of it, candidates will feel beholden to the people who funded their super PACs—but maybe that is impossible to prove. So that’s the basis of that claim.

regulations and some states were actively involved in public election funding. Citizens United really frustrates those proactive reforms; it has shaken up elections and campaign finance environments in some states to the point that we’ve seen states scramble to try to to keep up with these opinions.

There is much more money in politics today than there was ten years ago, and you can trace that directly back to the Citizens United opinion. The Supreme Court’s position rules that there is no problem with more money in elections because it represents more political speech feeding the marketplace of ideas.

There is no evidence—or I should say,

DK: While we’re on the subject of state elections, I’m interested to hear your take on the potential negative effect of Trump’s candidacy on down-ballot races. In congressional races, are we more likely to see Republicans voters who are crossing over to vote for Clinton split their ticket to vote for Republican legislators? What’s the precedent for this?

25

columbia features political review :: summer 2015 Senate back, which seems slightly more likely than a coin toss, I think we could probably credit Trump for that. I was originally interested in whether the damage would be so bad that it could threaten the Republicans’ House majority, but that does not seem to be likely.

columbia politicalcover review :: fall 2016 story

“The real question is where my resbonsiblity as a teacher lies. If I think Trump is a dangerous person, is it my responsibility to

DK: Are there any Senate races in particular that you’re looking at as ones we should be paying attention to?

MM: Empirically, I don’t know what to expect. I haven’t really delved into polls, and I’m not sure we have good data on who people are going to vote for at the top of the ticket, compared to who they are going to vote for at the bottom until after the election. Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell are trying to manage elections in their congressional conferences, and I honestly think, in their heart of hearts, they don’t care who wins this election. I think they both recognize that they are going to have a difficult opponent in the White House regardless.

What I think keeps them up at night is this question of whether Republicans are going to vote for Clinton or Johnson and then vote a straight Republican ticket down ballot, or whether there will be people like Jeb Bush or other typically reliable Republicans who say, “I’m just not going to go out this time.”

That’s really what these legislative leaders are concerned about. It makes congressional races much more difficult to forecast, and I think we honestly have no idea what’s actually going to happen in these races. If the Democrats take the 26

MM: Indiana and Ohio are both really interesting. I think in Ohio, the Senate race is going to be just as close as the Presidential one. You have two very experienced politicians there. In the Indiana race, the Democrats got a boost with Evan Bayh on the ballot. Actually, I would add that those races are interesting for different reasons. In Ohio, you have two of the most seasoned politicians in the state running for the Senate seat. In Indiana, you have an experienced insurgent Democrat, and in Illinois, a liberal state, you have Republican Senator Mark Kirk running against a sitting Democratic member of Congress. All three of those are seen as really strong pick-up opportunities for the Democrats, but in different ways.

Those are my favorite races this election season.

ability of things reverting to business as usual for the Republicans is high, because this is a party that is quite strong in opposition. Both the Republican Party and its electorate unified in opposition to a Democratic president. I think there is a higher probability that the so-called mainstream establishment will regain control of its machinery in that scenario. If Trump wins, it will provide validation for the populist elements of his base. For instance, you’re probably going to see some new faces in Cabinet positions. At that point, with a Republican president who would disagree with the Republican Speaker of the House on a lot of policies, the Republican Party would have to look in the mirror and decide what it is.

Somewhat paradoxically, if Donald Trump wins this election, I think it will at least spell a serious moment for the Republican Party, if not its demise.

There is historical precedent for this. At times in American history, we’ve seen DK: You alluded to Paul Ryan’s senti- minor parties, such as the Libertarians ments towards Trump, and to the an- today, waiting in the wings and looking ger of establishment Republicans who for a factious split in a majority party don’t see themselves represented by any so that they can come in to fill the gaps. of the candidates. How do you see the That scenario would look like the estabfuture of the Republican Party after this lishment Republicans throwing up their election given the deep factions in its hands and saying, “We can’t be part of ranks? this party anymore, it doesn’t represent the party that we joined,” and then creMM: It all depends on who wins. Hon- ating some kind of alliance with the estly, if Hillary Clinton wins, the prob- Libertarians to form a new party. This

columbia political :: fall 2016 columbia political reviewreview :: summer 2015 would arguably pull the Republicans back to the pre-Reagan party that it once was: focused on business, and not on social issues. This would leave the Trump Republican brand out in the cold. Of course, that’s not a prediction, but just a scenario. In the 1840s, the Whig Party’s election of Zachary Taylor offers a similar situation. The Whigs were completely divided by factions over the question of slavery, and were unable to move forward. After that, Republicans filled the gap. This birth of the Republican Party could foreshadow its death.

look at because there are so many shifts going on. One broad problem is that we don’t have a good understanding of Trump’s base, and if it will vote— that is really our biggest problem right now. We won’t understand the “Trump Voter” until after the election when we have better data, which really affects the polls. Every poll that we look at before the election is using a likely voter model to try to determine if the people we are talking to will actually vote. This is very hard to do for new or non-habitual voters, and Trump is definitely drawing his base from some of those DK: You teach a class on women in people. Combine that with his apparent American politics. Given that a woman immunity to all of those moments that has earned the nomination of a major would be game-enders for just about party for the first time , how do you feel any other candidate. Frankly, many of about the media’s coverage of Secretary us have been wrong about Trump at Clinton compared to that of her male every juncture of this race, including predecessors? me, which makes me reluctant to make a prediction. In a typical race, I could MM: I think the media is doing better confidently predict the outcome by now, than they did last time. We have a lot but I’m delaying until at least two weeks of evidence that the 2008 coverage of out from the election. I’m not sure that I Clinton was much more negative than will trust my own prediction until then, that of Obama. We are well aware of since there’s so much in flux. the double standards that women face as candidates. They are much more like- DK: There’s an expectation for profesly to face commentary on their appear- sors to maintain some semblance of ance, demeanor, and emotions than men, neutrality in politics, but I imagine that and that’s a hard headwind to run into. I has been difficult this election. Has this think she has been bolstered significant- election impacted your teaching? ly by the experience of campaigning before. I’m happy to see fewer gender MM: This has been a difficult pedagogcomments this time, but to say that she ical election, and this has been a converdoesn’t face unique challenges would be sation that many of us have had online, factually incorrect. on forums and on social media. Many of us prefer a government with two strong, DK: I’m curious to hear what your per- viable parties. I think we get better polisonal experience has been covering this cy when Republicans and Democrats are election as both an academic and a po- strong, focused, and in a position to barlitical forecaster, compared to your work gain. It’s not clear to many of us what on previous elections.

Donald Trump is. Is he a conservative?

Is he a populist? Is he a neo-fascist? I MM: This election is much harder to think you can make arguments for all of

cover features story those labels. The real question is where my responsibility as a teacher lies. If I think Trump is a dangerous person, is it my responsibility to communicate that?

That’s a real question that many of us have been wrestling with. Furthermore, can you divorce Trump from the statements made about the party itself?

What I have been trying to do is separate Donald Trump and any statements I might make about him as an individual from statements about the merits of the Republican Party of politicians like Paul Ryan.

DK: That seems like a really difficult split to make.

MM: It’s tricky to get students who may not otherwise care about politics to understand that the locus of power in the Republican Party still rests with the Speaker of the House. When I talk about Republican policy, I’m not picturing Donald Trump, I’m picturing Paul Ryan. In no other election would this be the case, and I think that says a lot about the state of the Republican Party.

DK: I know you’re running a “Most Influential Non-Politician” tournament in your class. Do you have any early forecasts, or are the winners unclear?

MM: Everyone should vote! The winner will surely be Martin Luther King, Jr., right? It must be him. But there are some interesting match-ups coming.

We have Malcolm X versus Robert E. Lee in the same bracket, for instance, so there will be lots of interesting conversations. We have 96 people in the bracket, and I put in a lot of people whose names are not familiar to students, so I can force them to think about such lesser-known figures. I’m really excited about it.

27

CPR

columbia political review 28