Drake Political Review Issue I | Volume I |

CONGRESS, YOU CAN’T SIT WITH US. OUR NATION’S LEAST POPULAR INSTITUTION

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2014 | VOLUME I | ISSUE I

THE DEBT DEBATE

DOES COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY STRIKE YOU AS AN OXYMORON? IT SHOULD.

PASS ME A BEER, STATE HOW THAT COLD ONE IN YOUR HANDS IS SENDING A POLITICAL MESSAGE

...THIS MIGHT HURT VACCINES, QUARANTINES & YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

IN THIS ISSUE DOMESTIC POLITICS

10

THE NAKED TRUTH LEGISLATING CAPITALISM PAGE 05

BRING YOUR OWN BANDWIDTH PAGE 07

WORLD POLITICS AMERICA HAS A TYPE: WHY WE KEEP GOING BACK TO THE BAD BOYS PAGE 12

OUR MISSION: Drake Political Review is a studentrun, nonpartisan political publication aimed at communicating a varied representation of voices. Our goal is to reflect Drake University’s mission to prepare students to be responsible global citizens.

LEGAL ISSUES THIS MIGHT HURT: VACCINES, QUARANTINES AND YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS PAGE 15

ALL EYES ON AURORA PAGE 20

YOU’RE GETTING WARMER...

— FINDING A SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

BY UNCOVERING THE FACTS PAGE 30

LOCAL POLITICS

SOCIAL ISSUES

32

PASS ME A BEER, STATE

THE DEBT DEBATE

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

25

READY FOR WHAT?

PAGE 34

“YOU CAN’T SIT WITH US” — CONGRESS: OUR NATION’S LEAST POPULAR INSTITUTION PAGE 28

WRITE FOR US: DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW @GMAIL.COM

LET’S TALK

POLITICS WELCOME TO DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW. Walking down the streets of Georgetown this summer, our conversation, as per usual, took a political turn. With our return to Drake approaching, we began to envision an outlet for Drake students to extend their own political conversations past the walls of the classroom. We agreed there were two things we knew to be true about Drake students- they have a lot of opinions and they like to be heard. We saw a willingness in Drake students to process the opinions of their classmates and engage in thoughtful debate about the real-life issues affecting their daily lives.

We’re not all politics majors. We’re not all in the J-school.

We aren’t experts or know-it-alls. We’re Drake students writing for Drake students. We’re Drake students who want to start a conversation.

So take a look inside. Who knows? Maybe you’ll surprise yourself and learn about a new issue, begin to understand someone else’s point of view, or maybe just refresh your memory.

Remember that iCloud leak of celebrities in the buff? Find out what it has to do with cyber security in “Naked Truth.” Maybe you dread discussing the Affordable Care Act with family over the dinner table? Clarify the debate surrounding the Individual Mandate and go in fully armed with “A Collective Cause” “Pass Me A Beer, State” will make you think differently next time you enjoy a cold one after a long day. No matter which article you find your eyes glued to, we hope you can put down this issue of Drake Political Review and walk away as a more informed and engaged citizen and student.

But before we go, we want to say thank you. Thank you to our wonderful team of editors. There is nothing easy about building something from the ground up, but your hard work and positivity made Drake Political Review a reality. Our writers lent their expertise in areas from public health to foreign policy in order to expand your thinking and engage your opinions. Without them, there is no Drake Political Review.

TURN THE PAGE. LET’S TALK POLITICS.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW FOUNDER & CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF BRIANNA STEIRER ART DIRECTOR & CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF SUSANNA HAYWARD COPY EDITORS KYLE ANTONACCI OLIVIA O’HEA SECTION EDITORS SOCIAL ISSUES:

JUSTIN DWYER

DOMESTIC POLITICS:

LOGAN POTTER

LEGAL ISSUES:

KATRINA SEEMAN

LOCAL POLITICS:

RILEY WILLMAN

CONTRIBUTORS HANNAH ARMENTROUT SAMUEL DALEY CHRIS FAIRBANK EMILY GRIMM EMILY GREGOR PETER JACKSON EMILY SADECKI LINLEY SANDERS ADAM SMITH JOHN WINGERT CHIEF OF STAFF SKYLAR BORCHARDT ADVISOR JENNIFER KONFRST

BRIANNA STEIRER CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

SUSANNA HAYWARD CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

SPECIAL THANKS TO DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW, RAY LI, TAYLOR SOULE, JANNETTE LARKIN, CHRISTINE RICCELLI, AND CATHERINE DREISS

LET’S TALK POLITICS

5

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS

WHY INNOVATION IS A THING OF THE PAST ARTICLE BY: CHRIS FAIRBANK

T

esla, the new revolutionary electric car company that has the potential to change the entire automobile industry, has been outlawed in New Jersey. Not because the vehicle is unsafe or because its production is unethical, but because the way it is sold is unconventional.

At the end of 2013, legislation was proposed outlining requirements for car dealerships. One of the components of this bill stated established businesses must have a “minimum of 1,000 square feet in which to display at least two motor vehicles.” This proposal wouldn’t affect traditional big car manufacturers and their dealerships, but it would deal a devastating blow to Tesla— the up-and-coming electric car company. Under this new law, Tesla’s unconventional method of bypassing the dealerships and selling directly to their customers puts the company at a disadvantage.

Facing pressure from the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers (NJCAR), Governor Chris Christie expedited the rule proposal instead of engaging in open debate.

As a result, Tesla was unable to continue operating in New Jersey after their license expired. But New Jersey is not alone. Michigan, Texas, Arizona and Maryland have also outlawed Tesla’s practices.

It seems the United States is no longer the King of Capitalism. Freedom, liberty and the “American Dream” are only acknowledged if they don’t pose a threat to big business.

Wealth and power have

constrained individual opportunities. Industry-shifting innovations have dwindled. We live in an era of constant technological revolution, but we have yet to see the changes in our everyday life.

Increased legislation is part of the problem. As industries continue to innovate, legislation is often drafted that makes these innovations harder to implement. These barriers to entry are continually growing in established industries, which make it increasingly difficult for businesses to enter the market, let alone transform it.

Despite the red-tape politics, the root of the issue is much bigger.

The problem lies with companies constantly legislating against their competitors rather than innovating their own products. Prior to World War II, during the golden age of capitalism, failure to innovate would have been a death sentence for a company as their products and services became obsolete. Now, if a corporation is unable to keep up with the changes in their industry, they focus their lobbying efforts in order to make these transformations harder to implement or even illegal to practice, instead of investing in new technologies to stay competitive.

What’s truly startling about this legislation is that it’s become common practice. Whether it be the automotive industry, alternative energy companies or even soft drink companies; instead of improving their brand they are pushing to legislate against their competitors.

In more than a dozen states,

utility companies are beginning to feel the heat from their solar counterparts. Their responses vary from increasing consumer fees in California to reducing company grid payments in Colorado and reducing tax incentives for those choosing to switch over to clean energy. These companies have chosen to legislate against solar companies instead of investing in or partnering with them.

The same goes for the automotive industry. Before Tesla had the capital to invest in their technology, big name automotive manufacturers not only had the financial ability, but also the infrastructure to invest in, market and sell an electric car.

Not doing so was a missed business opportunity, but not one that Tesla or any other innovative industry contender should be penalized for.

It’s innately anti-capitalist and frankly, it’s just bad business. What’s happening today is as if Union Pacific Railroad had lobbied to make cars and airplanes illegal back when those technologies began to emerge. If they had invested in these new forms of transportation, we’d probably all be flying and driving Union Pacific, too.

As business goes, if you don’t innovate, you will die. That’s the nature of the beast. Legislation only acts as a bandage wrapped around an arthritic joint: completely useless in the long run. When the game changes, change with it or consumers will forget you and move on.

Chris Fairbank is a senior Marketing major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

FALL 2014 |

6

LET’S TALK POLITICS

BRING YOUR OWN BANDWIDTH WHAT NET NEUTRALITY MEANS FOR YOUR NETFLIX ARTICLE BY: JOHN WINGERT

W

e assume when we watch television shows, like Breaking Bad, we will not be charged additional fees due to its immense popularity. It’s understood that following a monthly payment for Netflix, users are free to watch whichever shows fit their tastes. However, what if Netflix announced that they were going to charge customers extra for the popular shows? House of Cards, Orange is the New Black or even Breaking Bad would cost extra due to the extensive work that goes into producing the show and increasing demand by so many devoted fans.

Netflix would advocate for more fees it can impose on its customers.

What if Netflix decided that it wanted you to watch a show other than Breaking Bad? Could Netflix also introduce commercials and buffering periods to make watching the show irritating? Have no fear, this is a hypothetical situation; however, similar questions are being asked of the entire Internet streaming industry in recent net neutrality debates in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Traditionally, customers have assumed Internet services would be delivered equally— meaning you could watch Breaking Bad and delete Grandma’s embarrassing post off your Facebook wall at relatively the same speed.

However, since 2002 the FCC began deregulating cable and DSL Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

Cable ISPs were classified as an “information service” as opposed to a “telecommunications service.” The difference here is simple: if an ISP is classified as an “information service,” they don’t have to treat all services

7

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

equally. If it is classified as a “telecommunications service,” they do.

The FCC notably came down against Madison River Communications, a DSL ISP, in 2005 because Madison River Communications blocked customers from using any Internet-based telephone system, like Skype or Vonage— systems that competed with their own telephone services. After stopping port blocking

by Madison River Communications and settling on a $15,000 fine, the FCC later spread the deregulations of cable ISPs to DSL ISPs, like Madison River Communications, making their Internet an “information service” as well. So after 2005, cable ISPs and DSL ISPs could tell you how to use your Internet.

However, the FCC apparently has some consistency issues. The FCC stopped Comcast from degrading the quality of BitTorrent service.

Several appeals and backtracks later, Comcast gained greater leniency on issues of content control.

Make up your mind, FCC. Inconsistencies like these by the FCC have characterized its recent history. Shiva Stella is the communications manager for Public Knowledge, a public interest group that advocates for consumers in the digital marketplace. In an interview, Stella spoke of the profound division in the FCC’s rulings. In her opinion, the FCC seemed to think it didn’t need formal regulation when it could just rule against companies on a case-by-case basis. In short, the FCC made rules for each company that came before them instead of making it easier on all of us and just setting some ground rules.

In Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications

Commission, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals noticed this discrepancy.

Under federal law, the FCC had powers to designate categories for these companies and then act against them based upon the category in which they fit. However, the FCC can only regulate a firm according to the rules of the category to which it was assigned. They cannot just regulate and deregulate as they please- which is what they had been doing up until this point.

For example, Verizon can discriminate among the services it provides— meaning all of its services do not have to have the same bandwidth— because Verizon is categorized as an “information service.” The FCC cannot tell Verizon not to discriminate because they have already categorized them as an “information service.” If the FCC had categorized Verizon’s Internet service as a “telecommunications service,” then it would be subject to the rules of a common carrier— a service that cannot treat sources differently. This preferential categorization has allowed Verizon to create “fast lanes” for users, even though they haven’t added any additional bandwidth to make them faster.

You heard that right. They haven’t added any additional bandwidth.

Instead, Verizon and other ISPs slow down services unless companies pay for increased speed. They’re threatening companies like Netflix to pay for a fast lane or face a slow death on the buffering battlefield. On the other hand, telecommunications companies like Nexius have not been allowed to slow, for example, calls headed toward their rivals’ offices because it would be in conflict with their designation as common carriers

DOMESTIC POLITICS

LOADING...

FALL 2014 |

8

LET’S TALK POLITICS

in the “telecommunications service” category to treat the service differently depending upon the situation.

ISPs run into a similar problem with the Internet. Many ISPs provide television or phone services and would be adversely affected by increased growth in services like Skype or Netflix— direct competitors in these areas. ISPs argue these services also use the most bandwidth and produce the most cost. ISPs then must pass these costs on to all consumers. By charging providers of high-bandwidth services, like Netflix, for access to normal Internet speeds, other customers would save money. If high-bandwidth users do not pay for a “fast-lane,” then they would simply have their services delivered to customers more slowly.

So hypothetically, if Netflix paid for a fast lane, your Breaking Bad will load at normal speed.

If not, you’re going to be stuck doing the assigned reading for your class. But hey, your AT&T bill would be cheaper!

Laissez-faire capitalists would encourage the customers to decide which ISP they want, taking into account their practices toward net neutrality. The free market will favor companies catering to customers. This could come from both sides— either lowering the overall costs of ISPs or treating all content providers equally.

ISPs form natural monopolies in almost every city. Since laying cables to every home is expensive, it prevents new competitors from entering the marketplace easily. This leaves some pretty limited options for people when shopping for an ISP. In Des Moines, Mediacom and CenturyLink are the only viable options at this point. There is no great profusion of Internet service options.

So, like most things, Congress felt like they should get involved.

Congress has begun to voice its interest in net neutrality as an issue

9

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

of political debate. Aside from a decision from the FCC, Congress may be the next logical voice to provide decisive action on the topic.

The Sunlight Foundation found four of the five corporations that have been most active in their lobbying efforts to Congress are opposed to net neutrality. These corporations want to have the ability to provide faster lanes of Internet to companies who pay for it. These corporations are Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. Collectively, the have spent over $66 million on lobbying expenses, which is three and a half times more than Google— the only pro-neutrality corporation among these top five spenders.

For some, it has become even more difficult to view these companies favorably since the recent advent of supercookies. Supercookies are programs, controlled by ISPs like AT&T and Verizon, that monitor consumer browsing data on smart phones, even when browsing in incognito mode. Basically, these companies are watching what you search for on the Internet, even when you think they aren’t.

Although these companies have sent notices to their customers, they still plan to use the data of hundreds of millions of consumers to sell to data miners for targeted ads. Since its not exactly popular for corporations like Verizon and AT&T to be selling people’s personal search histories, trust is a difficult commodity for ISPs to obtain.

Iowa is not removed from this issue either. Senator Charles Grassley has started leaning in favor of net neutrality. In a prepared statement for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley emphasized the importance of appropriate legislation for protecting consumer needs and preventing ISPs from reducing consumers’ options.

Some have criticized President Obama for appointing Chairman Wheeler to the head of the FCC because Wheeler worked as a lobbyist for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association— an anti-net neutrality corporation.

After raising several thousand dollars for the president’s reelection campaign and hosting a fund raiser for high-end benefactors, Obama appointed Wheeler to chairman of the FCC. In spite of this, Obama, like Grassley, has voiced strong opposition to the sale of Internet fast lanes.

Although the FCC makes decisions independently of the President and Congress, rewriting laws for the FCC could forcibly change their decisions.

But the FCC has to make a decision either way. If the provider gets to decide who does and does not get “fast lanes,” almost any website can be slowed down whenever and wherever the ISP feels like it. On the other hand, if those causing high bandwidth consumption, like Netflix, had to pay for it to be delivered at the same speed, ISPs could potentially offer lower rates to consumers.

If the FCC classifies ISPs as common carrier services, ISPs could not differentiate the service of different users, but if they maintain their current distinction as “information services,” then there would be legal precedent to prevent the FCC from taking selective rulings in favor of net neutrality.

Shiva Stella and others predict the FCC will continue to uphold an open Internet. However, if the FCC allows ISP intervention, it would fundamentally change our relationship with the Internet. But remember, its your Internet. So take a break from Breaking Bad and let the FCC know how you feel.

John Wingert is a sophomore Politics and International Relations double major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

THE NAKED TRUTH ARTICLE BY: LOGAN POTTER

O

n August 31, 2014, an anonymous user posted a conglomerate of personal pictures belonging to roughly a dozen exposed celebrities. Oscar winning actress Jennifer Lawrence, Sports Illustrated model Kate Upton, singer Arianna Grande, and Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney were among the celebrities featured on the popular image-board website 4Chan.

Following the unveiling of these images, some users were bewildered and offended while others were overjoyed. Users feared their personal information was being stored in a vulnerable and ominous Cloud, as they saw the compromising pictures being reposted via Reddit, Tumblr, Imgur and numerous other Internet sites.

Leaving out the complicated computer jargon, the theft of the photos was accomplished by hackers exploiting Apple’s “Find my iPhone” service. Revealing personal information of each victim. The information was then used in a brute-force attack to penetrate and control each person’s iCloud account, thereby gaining access to all the contacts, emails, pictures and anything stored onto the server.

Initial reports from media outlets and opinion columns across the Internet encouraged people to shut down their iCloud accounts due to the breach in the network. Others, including an Apple spokesperson, argued the attack was directed “on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet.” A number of bloggers and contributors were not as concerned in the

WHAT CE LEBRITIE S CAN TEACH Y OU ABOU T CYBERSE CURITY

FALL 2014 | 10

LET’S TALK POLITICS

slightest and asserted that the relative risk of the “average Joe’s” Cloud being hacked for lascivious images in a bathrobe is far too low to be fearful or concerned. This may be true, but what about all of the other information we store on our phones?

On September 29, Apple announced the new iPhone 6 will be capable of being used at the gas station and grocery store in place of physical credit cards. Giving potential buyers the option to store incredibly sensitive credit card information in the Cloud as well. If so, that information could also be at risk to the same brand of hackers who barged into the celebrities’ private photos.

It might be worth taking a second look at the cybersecurity rights protecting everyday Americans and unpacking the mystery of who is liable for the information stored on our phones and computers.

Apple dodges the liability bullet rather handily by including personal liability provisions in their terms and conditions agreement. By blindly agreeing to this perplexingly extensive contract time after time, individual users are signing away their cybersecurity legal rights.

In Apple’s iCloud agreement they explicitly state in bold letters under section nine, “Apple does not represent or guarantee that the service will be free from corruption, attack, hacking or other security intrusions and Apple disclaims any liability relating thereto.”

Furthermore, the contract validates that “you expressly understand and agree that Apple and its affiliates… shall not be liable to you for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or exemplary damages.” In other words, after Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities signed these agreements, their legal right to sue Apple for the breach of security went out the window.

Yet individuals such as Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton aren’t

11

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

the only ones outraged by these limits to cybersecurity rights. In fact, Norway’s Consumer Council filed an official complaint to Apple for the “convoluted and unclear” nature of their iCloud agreement, arguing the 8,600 word agreement diverts people from actually reading it and violates the Norwegian Marketing Act. Norway, along with several other European countries, pleads for more user-friendly terms and conditions to follow their established law involving marketing, but where does the United States stand on this cybersecurity agenda?

“ This legislation seems to protect the website operators more than the real victims of these situations— the victims.”

On June 20, 2013, the Congressional Research Service issued The Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity— highlighting the fact that more than fifty statutes exist to address various aspects of cybersecurity, but there is no overarching framework legislation in place. “While revisions to most of those laws have been proposed over the past few years, no major cybersecurity legislation has been enacted since 2002,” the report states, “In light of these cybersecurity attack events growing more and more frequent, consensus has also been building that the current legislative framework for cybersecurity might need to be revised.”

However, revisions to relevant legislation such as the Communications Decency Act of 1996, an act intended to regulate indecency and obscenity on telecommunication systems, have provided little progress on some of these domestic issues. Section 230(c)(1) asserts “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information.” This has been interpreted to absolve Internet service providers and certain web-based services of responsibility for thirdparty content residing on those networks or websites. While the legislation protects website operators from third-party content residing on their networks or websites, it does little to protect the real victims of these intrusions— those whose personal information and images are stolen and exposed.

Unfortunately, with a convoluted and unclear Cloud service agreements that renders all liability to the user and seemingly useless laws and legislation regarding personal protection in the cyber world, it seems the only reasonable solution is to keep your most confidential, valuable and embarrassing items in a location not accessible to the Internet.

For any suggestions and revisions to the current cybersecurity legislation, Senators John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the chairs of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee can be reached at their individual websites to voice any concern you might have.

For now, keep your dirty laundry under your mattress, hackers prefer to enter through portals rather than front doors.

Logan Potter is a junior History and Religion double major. He is the Domestic Politics Section Editor for Drake Political Review.

WORLD POLITICS

AMERICA HAS A TYPE

WHY WE KEEP GOING BACK TO THE BAD BOYS ARTICLE BY: LINLEY SANDERS

F

eeling déjà vu every time America gets involved with other nations? You’re not the only one. The United States’ manner of confronting international problems is frighteningly predictable.

Americans are easily provoked. We get angry. But instead of fighting our own battles, we tend to “go back to the bad boys” and give guns to the enemy of our enemy. Much like that guy your friend kept going back to in high school, it never ends well. As it turns out, a mutual relationship based on hatred of the same group doesn’t create an alliance. Your enemy’s enemy still doesn’t like you, and then even more countries try to stick a “kick me” sign on your back.

Take for instance our new public enemy number one: the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, better known as ISIS. They are an extremist organization in the Middle East gaining power and influence on the global stage. ISIS is the same militant rebel group that has taken over large areas of Iraqi and Syrian territory. They are a spin-off of al-Qaeda, except better organized, more elusive, and they have a lot more interest in taking over countries than their predecessor. After a power struggle, ISIS was dubbed too extreme even for al-Qaeda and given the boot from their circle back in February 2014.

The U.S Department of State, along with a majority of the world, defines ISIS as a terrorist organization, and they are one of the most extreme groups the world has seen in recent years.

The end goal of ISIS is to form a sovereign Islamic State. Currently, they are taking control over villages in northern Syria and Iraq — without an invitation to do so.

ISIS is particularly brutal and

even films the decapitation of citizens from Western nations, specifically journalists and aid workers. Why? They don’t want Western powers playing big brother and butting in.

Tip: perhaps the “mind your own business” message would be better received without the mass-murdering and world terrorization. It’s the difference between politely excusing yourself from the dinner table and flipping the table on its end while simultaneously setting it aflame.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama isn’t beating around the bush.

Speaking of Bush, Obama has taken a page from his predecessor’s book.

As you may recall, former President George W. Bush gave the order for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 for a variety of reasons, including finding the Islamic extremists who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. The legal justification Bush used is being recycled: Obama is relying on Bush’s “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” to justify the current intervention in Syria.

That’s right— the President who promised to pull troops out of Iraq is using this same executive power to validate going back. Remember that delusional “I can change him” mindset that your friend had about that guy in high school? Yeah, that’s what Obama is saying too.

In a speech given after the murder of American journalist James Foley, Obama compared ISIS to cancer.

Much of the rhetoric used by Obama in response to ISIS causes flashbacks to the “war on terror” and the “axis of evil” touted by former President Bush. Granted, no one wants to see the violence continue, but the idea of getting sucked into another eight-year war is enough to make anyone skittish.

Currently, the U.S. is training Syrian rebels and giving them weapons to help fight off ISIS, a complete 180 from a year ago.

The Syrian regime isn’t exactly our best friend, but we’re hoping the rebels will keep us from having to step into the crisis any further.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Air strikes are also being carried out by the U.S. and supporting nations who also seek to push ISIS back from their borders.

Obama is certainly beginning to mirror Bush’s actions and one has to wonder whether or not they’ll have the same consequences.

What does the future look like?

Obama hopes the brownie points for saving the day outweigh the consequences for getting involved.

The Washington Post reports that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of how Obama handled the ISIS crisis.

Obama has promised the American people there will be no “boots on the ground,” but with over 1,000 soldiers in Iraq serving as advisers, something seems fishy. Obama admits that the fight against ISIS will be a long-term diplomatic, military and economic endeavor, though Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is quick to stress that American boots advising on the ground in Iraq is not the same as a “boots on the ground operation.” Semantics.

Remember, America, when you keep going back to the bad boys, someone always gets hurt.

Linley Sanders is a junior International Relations and Magazine Journalism double major. She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

FALL 2014 | 12

LET’S TALK POLITICS

LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD UNWINDING THE HISTORY AND FACTS OF THE ARAB - ISRAELI CONFLICT ARTICLE BY: ADAM SMITH

D

uring the summer of 2014, the world watched as Israel and HAMAS squared off once again. Despite the frequency of this conflict, many Americans are still unfamiliar with the roots of the issue. However, the importance of understanding how this conflict has developed throughout history, independent of personal beliefs and bias, cannot be understated.

In order to understand this conflict, it is necessary to go back to 1916; as World War I raged, the Allies (Great Britain, France, and Russia) struggled to break the stalemate in Europe. They sought to open a new front against the Ottoman Empire to knock them out of the war, but had thus far failed.

Sir Henry McMahon, the British Commissioner of Egypt (which was colonized at the time) proposed

13

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

inspiring an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks. To lead this revolt, he chose Husayn bin Ali, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, and the Sharif (ruler) of Mecca. In return for the revolt, the British promised Husayn his sons would rule modern day Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and much of Iraq and Syria. With this agreement, now known as the McMahon Letter, the Arab revolt started, led famously by British officer T.E. Lawrence, or Lawrence of Arabia, and Husayn’s son Faysal.

In 1917, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, responded to a letter from Baron Rothschild, a leading British Zionist. For almost 20 years, Zionists throughout Europe had proposed establishing a Jewish homeland where Jews could be safe from the historical persecution they

faced. Balfour responded the British government would support establishing a Jewish state in the former Ottoman province of Palestine (modern day Israel and Palestine.)

Instead of honoring either of their previous agreements, in 1917, the French and British decided to divide the Middle East into zones of control, drawing borders on a map.

Instead of focusing on ethnic or historically accepted lines, the British and French drew borders solely based on their respective national interests. This left the French in control of Lebanon and Syria while the British received Jordan, Palestine, and Iraq. This agreement, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, is heavily credited with damaging ArabWestern relations even to this day.

As recently as September 23, 2014, an ISIS propaganda

WORLD POLITICS

film referenced the Sykes Picot Agreement as one of their biggest grudges against the West.

As the Nazis came to power in Europe, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased heavily. In 1918, Jews made up only 8 percent of the population of Palestine, with Arabs making up the remainder. By the end of World War II in 1946, Jews made up almost 30 percent of Palestine. This rapid increase in population caused Jews to call for Palestine to become a strictly Jewish state. This serves as one of the main sources of the current tension and violence between Jews and Arabs.

In 1947, the recently formed United Nations (UN) sought to solve this tension by dividing Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. This plan, titled Resolution 181, later passed in the UN despite not receiving a single ‘yes’ vote from the Middle East. The resolution gave the Arab population 43 percent of Palestine, the Jewish population 56 percent, and Jerusalem, a holy city for Muslims, Jews, and Christians, was placed under international control.

In 1948, when the UN’s plan was set to take effect, the newly formed state of Israel declared war and defeated its neighbors Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Palestine. As a result of the war, Israel gained control over roughly 60 percent of former Palestine and over 700,000 Palestinians fled their homes. Even after the ceasefire was signed, Palestinians were not allowed to return. As a consequence, neighboring Arab countries and the UN faced a massive refugee crisis that is still evident today.

Displaced Palestinians without a government formed the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 with Yasser Arafat as its leader.

The PLO has remained a key actor throughout the conflict through both violent and diplomatic acts.

Throughout the 1970s the PLO took part in a multitude of terrorist attacks all over the world in an attempt to change Israeli policy, most notably in the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre which killed nine Israeli athletes.

In 1967, Israel launched a preemptive war against its neighbors after Egypt, Syria, and Jordan began plotting to attack. In a matter of just six days, Israel captured the remainder of former Palestine as well as the Golan Heights in Syria and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, doubling its size.

Again in 1973, Syria and Egypt fought Israel, this time resulting in a stalemate with neither side gaining territory. It became clear

“ The conflict we witness today is a product of a long line of historical and political extrapolation.” to some countries in the region Israel was there to stay.

Realizing this, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel in return for the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula in 1979. This played a role in his assassination in 1981.

However, Sadat’s bravery paved the way for future countries, such as Jordan, whose officials signed a similar treaty in 1994.

In 1987, Palestinians began using civil disobedience to protest Israeli occupation; known as the First Intifada. Israel’s response of using live ammunition and mass arrests brought on international condemnation and resulted in peace talks in Oslo, Norway in 1993. The Oslo

Peace Accords were hailed by the international community as the key to peace in the Middle East, but they broke down after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a radical Zionist.

After the failure of the Oslo Peace Accords, violence erupted again between the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. To contain the conflict, Israel built a wall surrounding the West Bank and established Israeli controlled settlements within the wall.

These settlements remain a key issue dividing the two sides.

In 2007, a rival Palestinian political party, HAMAS, seized control of Gaza from the PLO. HAMAS is seen by many as a far more radical Palestinian group than the PLO. HAMAS is classified as a terrorist organization by the United States, Russia, United Nations, and the European Union. Since it took control of Gaza, skirmishes have regularly broken out between HAMAS and Israel— western media often covers stories of rocket and air strikes launched by both sides.

In April of 2014, HAMAS and the PLO struck an agreement to come together in an effort to unite all Palestinians. The unification marks significant progress on the side of the Palestinians in their continued efforts to be heard by the international community.

The conflict we witness today is a product of a long line of historical and political extrapolation. However, with a better understanding of the roots of the issue, we can more effectively engage in an educated discussion and debate anchored in facts.

Adam Smith is a senior International Relations and Politics double major.

He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

FALL 2014 | 14

LET’S TALK POLITICS

...THIS MIGHT HURT

VACCINES, QUARANTINES AND YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARTICLE BY: EMILY SADECKI

L

ong before celebrity spokespeople and national campaigns, there has been a debate over individual liberties versus public health initiatives. To some extent, our health is governed by the decisions we make on a day-to-day basis. Whether or not we eat a cheeseburger every day or decide to head to the gym on a regular basis is up to us to decide for ourselves.

That being said, our health is intricately tied to those around us and our environment. We cannot control the pollution in the air around us or the food that is available to us, and it is not up to us whether or not sick Sally decides to come to

15

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

class. For this reason, health policy and regulation gets complicated.

Many times public health policy is in line with human rights. In order to enjoy the freedoms granted by the Constitution, there has to be a baseline of safety measures put into place. For example, vaccination against highly contagious diseases, traffic protocols and water filtration allow us to go about our daily lives without constantly worrying about potential health threats.

In some cases though, policies aimed to benefit the collective may come into contention with individual rights. This is where things get sticky.

Over time, the Constitution has

been used to validate both stances in various situations. Those in support of personal liberty claim the 14th Amendment allows them autonomy in decisions made about their own body, while state officials claim police power during a medical emergency.

Should it be required for everyone to get vaccinations to protect the vulnerable members in the community? Is it infringing on personal rights to require quarantine of highly infectious individuals?

There are no easy answers to these questions. Vaccinations are particularly interesting because they are dependent on a principle called herd immunity. When enough people

LEGAL ISSUES

within a community are vaccinated, there is little chance for an outbreak.

Many infectious diseases rely on human-to-human contact or air transmittance. Outbreaks result from an infection in one person becoming amplified; for example, the first person to contract the disease comes into contact with someone, then both of them come into contact with another person, creating an exponential propagation of disease into the population.

When a population achieves herd immunity, there are limited interactions that a person can have that will lead to passing on the disease. This can eventually

even lead to the eradication of the disease. If some individuals remain not vaccinated, such as the elderly, infants, pregnant women and those with compromised immune systems, they are still protected from an outbreak of disease. Among those who are vaccinated, there may be some efficacy problems where for example, only 98 percent of those vaccinated are protected.

Receiving vaccination for the good of both yourself and the rest of the population does not come without personal risk. Though in most cases the side effects are mild, such as soreness, swelling and redness at the injection site, some people can

experience life-threatening allergic reactions. Since vaccinations are administered close to the onset of symptoms of many other diseases, things like autism and sudden infant death syndrome have been associated with vaccinations, although research is highly inconclusive.

Though it may seem like a recent phenomenon, vaccinations were first taken in front of the Supreme Court in 1904. Henning Jacobson was fined $5 dollars for refusing to receive the smallpox vaccination mandated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He took his case in front of the Supreme Court in the name of personal liberty referenced

FALL 2014 | 16

LET’S TALK POLITICS

in the 14th Amendment. The Court decided Jacobson was not in the right to refuse vaccination. In regards to his decision, Justice Harlan said though the Constitution protected individual liberty, it is not, “an absolute right in each person to be, in all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from constraint.”

The Supreme Court claimed the state could restrict individual liberty when the general public was in great danger. Labeling smallpox an epidemic gave the court reason to enforce vaccinations. Today, the situation is more complicated. Since many diseases have been practically eradicated from the United States population, they are not seen as an immediate public health threat.

Increasingly, a larger amount of children that are obtaining vaccination exemptions due to personal and religious beliefs or for medical reasons. Is the potential of an epidemic a strong enough reason to restrict vaccination exemptions?

Vaccinations are just one instance when tension regarding individual rights in public health has arisen.

Quarantines separate infected individuals for the good of the rest of the population. This can be seen in the current Ebola outbreak.

In some cases, public health and the good of the population have been used as an imposing political tool on minority or disadvantaged groups. For example, immigrants arriving in New York City could be kept in less-than-human conditions in the name of stopping the spread of cholera and typhus. Even more extreme was the 1927 case Buck vs.

Bell, where a law was upheld that allowed Virginia to sterilize anyone

17

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

that was deemed “feeble minded,” so that their genes would not be passed on into the population.

A more recent example is in the case of Ebola quarantines. While many states have found it within their power to mandate quarantines for people arriving back from areas with cases of Ebola, due to the state of emergency, many have

“ Receiving vaccination for the good of both yourself and the whole does not come without personal risk.” argued there is no real danger in a majority of the cases and that the states themselves are acting against individual liberties.

Recently, a combination of a number of factors has lead to backlash against public health policy. Our removal from large scale outbreaks of things like polio and measles have left people without much of a sense of what is being vaccinated against. Also, a rising fear of government regulation and “big brother” scare tactics has lead people to question government-issued mandates such as vaccinations.

This has led to a whole new form of public health initiatives that don’t

look like formal policy. Instead of a hands-down coercive approach, campaigns such as “Let’s Move” and education regarding things like STD transmittance are being used instead.

This is interesting because they are still aimed to shape behavior, but in a practical. As a collective, they send the message individuals are in charge of their own health based on what they put into their bodies and the choices they make on a daily basis.

Although bottom-up initiatives can be empowering, if they are not done in a thoughtful manner, they can lead to shaming instead of diverting attention toward poor policy. For example, obesity is tied to poor decision making at the individual level rather than action being taken against those corporations who are manipulating the food supply in an addictive manner with sugars and fats or inadequate access to healthy food options in a community.

There are no easy answers to these debates, and when they seem straight forward, we need to take a step back and make sure the complexities are being taken into account. Going about your day, look at the many ways you interact with public health initiatives.

As long as disease continues to march to the beat of its own drum and germs fail to easily fit into the model of the Constitution, we will have to make tough decisions about the necessity of public health regulation.

Emily Sadecki is a junior Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology and Public Relations double major. She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

LEGAL ISSUES

PHOTO DERIVATIVE OF CC HEIPEI

A COLLECTIVE CAUSE

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE AND YOUR PERSONAL LIBERTY ARTICLE BY: KATRINA SEEMAN

I

f you don’t own a car, you don’t need car insurance.

If you aren’t a homeowner, chances are you don’t pay for an insurance plan to protect a house.

If you are an active, healthy individual who doesn’t get sick, are you required to purchase health insurance? The answer is still no.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) brought much needed reform to the health care industry. In an effort to combat unfair practices in private insurance markets and expand access to health care outside of the

emergency room, President Obama signed the PPACA into law on March 23, 2010. The PPACA has had— and continues to have— its fair share of struggles within the federal courts.

Thus far the most expansive changes, including the individual mandate, have gone into effect but maybe not in the way people had envisioned.

Beginning in 2012, the Supreme Court heard the first challenges to the PPACA in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The Court, similar to many Americans, had a wide range of opinions about the PPACA. The resulting 5:4 deci-

sion upheld the individual mandate, while striking down the punitive Medicaid expansion provision that revoked all federal funding for the program in states that opt out of the PPACA’s expansion. Chief Justice Roberts relabeled the penalty of the individual mandate as a tax.

Rather than trying to construe the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause, the mandate was upheld under Congress’ Article I power to lay and collect taxes.

In order for changes, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions and no lifetime limits, to successfully

FALL 2014 | 18

LET’S TALK POLITICS

work, an individual mandate was necessary. The intent was not to ruffle ideological feathers about government control, but rather to find a way to let people who need access to health care to do so affordably. Before health care reform, over 60 percent of bankruptcies were related to medical costs. This wasn’t just for the 44 million uninsured Americans, but also for those who had coverage but were dropped due to a variety of reasons such as lifetime limits, pre-existing conditions and getting sick.

The US News and World Report says the PPACA has become a fading issue even as the law’s main provisions begin to take effect. After the re-launch of the healthcare.gov website and the implementation of the individual mandate, citizens without legally exempt status either have to purchase minimum insurance or expect to find a bill for their “individually shared responsibility payment” on April 15th. Individuals do not have to have insurance. Unlike states’ option to refuse to expand Medicaid without penalty, individuals don’t have a punishment-free choice. Because the mandate takes the form of a tax, there is no “What if I don’t want to pay” option as the IRS will hold back the annually increasing fee from future tax refunds.

Paying this tax does not provide any coverage to an individual.

Exempt statuses have been given to a variety of groups that either access health care in non-traditional ways or have federally recognized religious objections to programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Hardship exemptions are another exception that has limited the individual mandate’s impact. Healthy young people may opt to pay the fine or may be exempt from the tax because they do not meet the threshold requirements for paying.

Health care reform has been beneficial to many people, especially college students who can now stay

19

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

covered by a parent’s insurance plan until turning twenty-six without having to remain financially dependent on them. In the past, health care for individuals in their twenties was either unaffordable or severely lacking, especially as many would be dropped from parent plans at age 19 or upon college graduation— both times when many are not financially prepared to pay for the added expense that comes with quality health care.

Students who aren’t covered by a parent’s plan still may choose to not get covered. Often times students qualify for state-based programs that would provide care, but those who do not and are still looking to purchase insurance have other options. Drake University discontinued its student health insurance plan as of August 1, 2014 due to low enrollment in the program over the past three calendar years. Alternatives to remaining on a parent’s plan include public, state or federal exchange plans, individual insurance plans, high risk pool plans or a catastrophic plan.

The PPACA was created in order to fix a broken system that wasn’t working for many Americans. The individual mandate was one tool the PPACA needed to use in order to expand health care coverage for all Americans including college students and young professionals. There is still an option to opt-out of the mandate, but paying the tax doesn’t provide any coverage for emergency room visits, prescription medications, or preventative health measures.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT 101 More commonly known as “Obamacare,” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law in March of 2010. The goal of the PPACA was to provide more U.S. citizens access to quality and affordable healthcare coverage.

CHANGES: You can remain on your parents’ health insurance plan until the age of 26.

No lifetime limits on coverage— in the past, insurance companies placed a dollar limit on how much they would spend on your covered benefits throughout your lifetime. Once you went over that limit, it was up to you to cover the remaining cost. This is no longer the case.

Insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Insurance companies have to justify premium increases— now, in order to raise rates by more than 10 percent, insurance companies must have the increase reviewed by your state or a federal Rate Review program.

Preventative care is now free on most plans— blood pressure tests, cholesterol tests, mammograms and vaccines are among the many types of preventative care that are now covered by most plans.

COSTS: Increase in federal taxes.

Individual mandate— a tax handed out to those individuals who opt out of any health care coverage (this was the cornerstone of the Supreme Court case regarding the PPACA).

The increased costs incurred by insurance companies will lead to higher rates paid by every individual.

Small businesses (over 50 employees) are now required to provide health care coverage to their employees.

Katrina Seeman is a junior Law, Politics and Society and Politics double major.

She is the Legal Issues Section Editor for Drake Political Review.

As of April 19, 2014 over 8 million Americans now have coverage due to the marketplace created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For more information, visit www.healthcare.gov.

LEGAL ISSUES

ALL EYES ON AURORA

UNPACKING THE LOGISTICS OF THE JAMES HOLMES TRIAL ARTICLE BY: HANNAH ARMENTROUT

O

n July 20, 2012, James Holmes carried out an attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. This attack killed 12 people and injured more than 59 others, leading to the fear of the movie-goers, a media storm, and what is sure to be a complex and widely-publicized trial.

Holmes’ trial is scheduled to start on December 8, 2014. In examining this case, three legal issues warrant special consideration: the death penalty, the insanity defense, and the request for a change of venue.

Colorado is not what would be termed an “active” death penalty state. Gary Davis was the last person to be executed in Colorado in 1997.

There are currently three people on death row in the state: Sir Owens, Robert Ray and Nathan Dunlap.

At 19 years old, Nathan Dunlap entered a Chuck E. Cheese after closing. He shot five employees, killing four, in order to rob cash from the safe. This case has many

similarities to the Aurora Theater Shooting. This case also took place in Aurora, Colorado, but it happened twenty-one years ago. Like Holmes, Dunlap’s mental state was also questioned. However, unlike Holmes, Dunlap was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and the defense did not thoroughly explore the mental health issues during the trial. This decision has been heavily criticized and later became part of the basis for Dunlap’s appeal. Dunlap’s trial was also moved to Colorado Springs from Arapahoe County due to a request for a change of venue, because it was believed he could not obtain a fair trial in the county where the crime took place.

Colorado is one of 32 states where the death penalty is legal. It is the prosecution that makes the ultimate decision whether or not to pursue the death penalty. In this case, the prosecution decided to pursue the death penalty against Holmes. “For James Eagan Holmes, justice is death,”

says George Brauchler, District Attorney for Arapahoe County in court on March 31, 2014. This follows the rejection of a plea offer

by Holmes’ attorneys the previous week, in which Holmes would plead guilty and serve life in prison without the possibility of parole.

“It’s one of those cases where you say to yourself as a prosecutor: this state has the death penalty,” says Drake University Law Professor David McCord, “If this is not a death penalty case, then what is? If you say this is not a death penalty case, then you are saying Colorado should not have the death penalty.”

There are several theories of justice explaining support for the death penalty. The first is deterrence, although there is mixed evidence as to whether or not capital punishment persuades would-be offenders not to commit the crime. A second is retribution, which is the idea that the defendant committed an act so terrible the only fair punishment

FALL 2014 | 20

LET’S TALK POLITICS

is death. A third theory is denunciation, in which society has the death penalty in order to make a statement that some crimes, some offenders, are so reprehensible that society as a whole decides to make a statement by executing the offender.

Arguments against the death penalty can be understood as coming from two groups: a religious opposition and a secular humanist opposition. Religious groups will argue it is immoral to kill someone, no matter what they have done, based on a higher law. The secular humanist movement is more likely to argue without religious justification that human life is sacred and should be preserved. They also argue it reflects poorly on society to knowingly take someone’s life.

There are also various objections to the way capital punishment is carried out, including discussions of the racial disparity in the type of person that is convicted and sentenced to death, how a system with capital punishment is more costly than a system without it, and the fact that innocent people could potentially be killed under this system.

Capital punishment cases are split into two phases. The first is the guilt or innocence phase. This phase proceeds like a normal trial, with a jury returning a verdict regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In most cases, the

21

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

jury recommends a sentence to the judge who would then determine the defendant’s punishment based on guidelines. However, in death penalty cases, once a defendant is found guilty they proceed to a second trial. In the penalty phase, the jury decides whether or not the defendant should receive the death

“ ‘The whole point of going into a movie theater and shooting it up would be that it’s a monstrous wrong that he wanted to do.’” penalty. Such a decision must be unanimous. If the jury cannot reach a consensus, the prosecution can try that portion of the trial again.

However, the death penalty issue in this case is further complicated by questions about Holmes’ mental state. There are four parts of a trial in which mental capacity can

be considered, and for each there is a different burden of proof and standard by which sanity is judged.

The first part determines whether or not the defendant is competent to stand trial. In this phase, it must be shown the defendant is capable of assisting in his or her own defense and is aware of the charges against them. Holmes was found competent to stand trial.

The second part of consideration for sanity is the guilt or innocence phase. Holmes’ lawyers are arguing he is not guilty by reason of insanity.

Colorado’s death penalty statute, changed in 1995, presents the standard of the M’Naghten Rule.

The M’Naghten Rule is a common standard in capital punishment cases in which the prosecution must show Holmes was capable of understanding right from wrong at the time he committed the crime.

If Holmes’ defense works, he will be placed in a mental institution.

If it does not, he will go to prison and perhaps to death row.

McCord, an expert in capital punishment, believes the prosecution has a good argument against the insanity defense. “The reason he [Holmes] was doing this was because he knew it was wrong,” McCord says. “The whole point of going into a theater and shooting it up would be that it’s a monstrous wrong that he wanted to do. He might have a defense under [a different]

LEGAL ISSUES

test, but not under this test.”

Both the prosecution and defense will bring experts to testify to Holmes’ mental state. The prosecution will also use other evidence, such as the planning that went into the attack and the finding that someone made an Internet search on Holmes’ computer for “rational insanity” prior to the shooting.

The defense tried to suppress the evidence so it would not appear at trial, but the judge has ruled the prosecution can use the evidence.

If Holmes is convicted, the third phase is the penalty portion.

Holmes could be sane enough to be guilty of the crime, but insane enough that jurors could decide he should not be sentenced to death.

The fourth phase occurs if the jury decides in favor of the death penalty. In order to be executed, Holmes must be able to understand he is being put to death and why.

However, the defense is worried jurors may not be able to decide fairly in this case, which had a wide impact and received substantial press coverage. The defense has requested a change of venue, which would move the case from Arapahoe County to a different county in Colorado. While the judge denied the request, saying that it is too early to assume they will not be able to select a proper jury from Arapahoe County, it is possible the trial will be moved at some point during jury selection.

McCord doubts changing the county will make a difference in this case, “It doesn’t seem like there would be any venue it could be changed to where people would know less about it,” he says. “The defense is going to have to show a significant likelihood of an unfair trial, especially since it’s a case of such magnitude that people all across Colorado have formed opinions about it to the same extent as the people in Arapahoe County.”

The infamous “Unabomber” trial was moved from Oklahoma to Colorado, but only federal cases can be moved to a different state. Because Holmes is being tried under state law, he could only be moved to a different county within the state of Colorado.

There is significant pressure to try the case in Arapahoe County, especially from a logistical standpoint. Moving all of the lawyers, judges, jurors and witnesses to a new county would be time-consuming and costly. The defense would have to show Holmes is more likely to receive a fair trial in a different county for the judge to grant the request, creating a real question as to whether or not it is possible for Holmes to receive a fair trial in any possible venue.

Cases such as Holmes’ raise important questions about the promise of a fair trial. These questions will be answered largely in the court of public opinion and in politics. Holmes’ trial must

progress under the laws already in place. If he is convicted and sentenced to death, politics and public opinion can exert influence over whether or not Holmes lives or dies. Amid criticism and praise, Governor John Hickenlooper issued a temporary reprieve in Dunlap’s case, which delays his death but does not vacate his death sentence.

“You know, I personally am against the death penalty. I don’t think the government should be taking people’s lives,” Hickenlooper told Denver’s 9NEWS Anchor Gary Shapiro. “But a number of other people disagree. That was why we did a reprieve: to respect that sentiment within the state.”

This decision became an issue in Hickenlooper’s gubernatorial reelection campaign in November, which he won by a narrow margin.

Societal and political pressures, along with concerns about inequity in the system, raise concerns about the injustice of capital punishment, even as the high death count, fear, and anger in the Aurora Theater Shooting raise questions whether life behind bars is justice for the victims.

Hannah Armentrout is a junior Law, Politics and Society and Rhetoric, Media and Social Change double major. She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

FALL 2014 | 22

LET’S TALK POLITICS

CONGREGATIONS AND CORPORATIONS

WHAT YOU HEARD VS. WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE HOBBY LOBBY DECISION ARTICLE BY: EMILY GRIMM

J

une 30, 2014 marked a monumental day in our justice system as the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. was finally announced.

In a 5:4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and upheld the lower court’s ruling that organizations and closely held corporations did not have to provide certain contraceptive measures due to their respective religious beliefs.

In controversial Supreme Court cases, the core facts of the case can easily be lost in a surge of commentary and opinions. Following the decision, news channels and social media outlets were overwhelmed with opinions regarding the outcome of case. Both political pundits and average citizens alike displayed intense reactions— whether it be outrage or excitement— to this decision. While it is important for individuals to be educated on the issues that face our branches of government, but it is even more imperative to be educated on the basic facts of the case prior to forming personal opinions.

This case started with the contraception mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare.”

Under the mandate, certain forms of health care must be provided free of cost or “co-pay free.” However,

23

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

some groups are exempt from the contraception mandate because it violates their religious beliefs. These groups include houses of worship, such as churches and synagogues, and non-profit religious organizations like Christian hospitals and religiously affiliated schools.

This is where Hobby Lobby comes into the argument. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, and does not fall under the non-profit or house of worship exemptions. However, there is a specific term of the mandate that is often overlooked– “Closely Held Corporations.”

If five or fewer people own more than half of a corporation, it is considered to be “closely held.” Time explains that, according the IRS, “Closely held firms make up over 90 percent of all American businesses, and about 52 percent of the American workforce works for a closely held corporation.” Since the five individuals who own Hobby Lobby are devout Christians, the corporation’s board argued that they should be able to refuse to supply health care measures that conflict with their religious beliefs – specifically certain kinds of contraceptive measures.

Following the announcement of the Court’s decision, two groups seemed to be making the most noise.

The first voiced a religious standpoint. These businesses and orga-

nizations that had strong religious beliefs praised the Supreme Court’s decision for defending religious freedom rights. The second was a series of organizations and interest groups that undermined the decision, stating that it was a violation of women’s access to health care.

However, it is possible to see both sides. As a woman, I can relate to and hold a personal vested interest in the debate surrounding reproductive issues. I also acknowledge the importance of protecting our First Amendment rights, particularly our right to freely practice the religion of our choice.

A common misconception of the case was that genders were divided in this matter. However, not all women were upset with the ruling, just as not all men were in favor of it. Some commentary in the media and louder organizations implied women were very upset by this ruling and corporations headed by males had been victorious in telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In fact, The Becket Fund, which represented Hobby Lobby in this case, is primarily composed of women who take on religious freedom cases.

The Hobby Lobby case was not intended to be a gendered issue; the primary focus revolved around rights from the First Amendment.

LEGAL ISSUES

Larger outside sources turned the dialogue into a gender issue.

Another common misunderstanding found in research was that Hobby Lobby was denying women their contraceptive needs. Under the Affordable Care Act mandate, twenty forms of birth control are available for both women and men.

Hobby Lobby refused to provide four specific forms of contraception: Plan B, Ella and two types of IUDs. Ella is similar to Plan B while an Intrauterine Device (IUD) is a form of birth control is inserted by a doctor that after inserted can be used for up to 12 years.

Many Christian faiths believe that life begins at conception. While there is no medical way to prove if a baby has been created at that exact moment, they believe these forms of birth control can “abort” any potential life that could be created after.

Plan B can be taken after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. If an IUD is inserted the day after unprotected sex, it works much like Plan B. The other sixteen forms of birth control that are available range from male and female condoms to all forms of birth control pills to vasectomies and contraceptive rings, patches, and injections.

Many individual opinions and personal ideologies work their way into these arguments, including

in the common claim that no one forces a person to work at places like Hobby Lobby. The overall sentiment is that if individuals do not agree with companies’ policies or religious beliefs, they should not

“ A majority of this case comes down to understanding the rights corporations have in relation to individuals.” work there.

Hobby Lobby has always been publicly known as a Christian-based corporation. They are closed on Sundays to give workers the day to worship and spend time with their families. However, not all people are guaranteed the luxury of choosing their workplace.

A majority of this case comes down to understanding the rights

corporations have in relation to individuals. This topic has been a long-debated issue in our legal system. Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission marked a major change in the impact corporations have on our daily lives. In part, the Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations can have the same rights as an individual persons in terms of campaign funding under the protection of free speech afforded by the First Amendment. Based on precedent, this leads to decisions we see today like the one in Hobby Lobby, where corporations not only enjoy protections of speech, but also religious protections under the First Amendment.

Can corporations share in the same rights as citizens of the United States? In the eyes of the Supreme Court, yes they can. First, it’s important to understand the basis of the ruling and to gather all of the facts before crafting one’s opinions and arguments. Our nation is founded upon principles of our branches of government representing the will of the people.

In order to do so, debates and dialogue must be paired with factual arguments and accuracy.

Emily Grimm is a senior Politics major.

She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

FALL 2014 | 24

LET’S TALK POLITICS

PASS ME A BEER, STATE HOW THAT COLD ONE IN YOUR HANDS IS SENDING A POLITICAL MESSAGE ARTICLE BY: PETER JACKSON

A

t a surface level, it would certainly seem the acts of having a beer and expressing political voice are unrelated.

However, what if they were? Even at happy hour, the state is impacting us.

If government and its regulation are always around us, our ability to communicate with the government becomes every day and routine. Thus, political voice— a citizen’s ability to engage with its government— becomes relevant to even the simple and seemingly apolitical act of drinking a beer.

This is a bold claim, so first we need to make sense of beer drinking as more than just consumption. Beer drinking can— and has been— a way of forming community and deciding what is local. “Back twenty years ago, it was my parents who started seeking out family-friendly brewpubs on our vacations. Observing local

25

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

beer and breweries were a great way to get a feel for an area,” Danielle Teagarden, a lawyer who specifically focuses on beer litigation writes, “To be sure, there weren’t nearly as many options in those days as there are today, but they’re still right about local culture speaking in its beer.”

Culture, law and governance are intrinsically linked. Beer can be used as a way of seeing what a community is like, and through this our private consumption becomes related to our to culture and community. Private and public spheres become blurred together.

There are currently conscious efforts to make beer a voice for politics. Examples of this can be found in the efforts of the people who make beer. Many brewers have started producing beers that have political themes and commentary. An article called “Rebel Beers Take on Society’s

SOCIAL ISSUES

Ails” highlights a few instances.

In one case, a brewery in Quebec brewed a beer that was in relation to the restriction of protester’s rights during a tuition increase at a university. The beer’s label contained the words “Scammer in Chief.” The message, however, was not about either side of the tuition increase.

Instead, it was about the reaction of the government towards protesters.

This is not the only brewery to enter the political sphere. “We want to put on the shelf topical beers from a taste perspective and a social perspective” says David Fenn of Howe Sound Inn & Brewing Company.” These brewers are creating a way for people to express political opinion in an extremely passive way, almost as if they were going to a rally or donating money to a cause.

I realize this is a rather grandiose articulation of beer drinking.

However, there is proof the state has a vested interest in our daily lives, if only for the purpose of certain goals, such as taxation. Take for instance this statement written by James Scott: “No administrative system is capable of representing any existing social community except through a heroic and greatly schematized process of abstraction and simplification.” The state governs and conceptualizes a citizenry with certain goals in mind. James Scott was pointing this out in these narrow and specific simplifications, short term successes in policy are emphasized— often leading to the overlook of long-term systemic issues.

The state’s interests are important for our discussion because of the

way generalizations, inaccurate or not, funnel their way into our lives through laws and regulations. Law remains around us constantly even when we are not aware of it. For example, in her book Everyday Law on the Street, Mariana Valverde writes, “However, the sidewalk entities I can see— tiles, bricks, lamps, etc.— are not purely physical. They are simultaneously physical, economic, discursive

“ Beer drinking can— and has been— a way of forming community and deciding what is local.” and aesthetic, and more relevant in the present context, legal.” Just because the state and its laws are not visible does not mean they are not structuring our everyday life.

This has all been an effort to get us to a place where I can say, with weight, that locality and individual action are intrinsically related to state’s sovereignty over us, but more importantly that the act of drinking a beer is a voice. To go even farther, we could consider the act of drinking a beer as a sort of insubordination, a way to dissent from the public-sphere of life.

Politics and societal terrain are slowly forming tapestries; broad sweeping social changes are nearly impossible to achieve short of revolution. Edmund Burke, a founder of modern conservatism, touched on this in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. He claimed, simply put, we cannot have dynamic social change based on abstract concepts.

A side-effect of this, however, is that change is scrutinized thoroughly and yielded slowly. This can leave both reformers and conservatives at odds with the current status quo.

So what is the point, then? I would forward the claim self-agency is.

It is important even if that agency is executed through seemingly simple acts. James Scott writes, “More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called ‘Irish democracy,’ the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.”

When you are stuck unhappy with the slow processes of a state’s regime, but do not see the pros— if there are any— of violent acts that push forward revolution, what is left? Well, one answer is to grab a locally-brewed beer and have a chat with the person next to you about the ideas and concepts that structure our understanding of society. That apparently apolitical act means more than meets the eye.

Peter Jackson is a senior Law Politics and Society and Politics double major.

She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

FALL 2014 | 26

LET’S TALK POLITICS

THE TELEPHONE EFFECT

HOW INFORMATION GETS LOST IN OUR SEA OF TECHNOLOGY ARTICLE BY: JUSTIN DWYER

R

emember the game “Telephone” you played as a kid? Somebody would start at the front of the line, whisper something into the ear of the person next to them, and then by the end the original phrase was completely unrecognizable. The misinformation was either on purpose, accident, or a mix of both— but very rarely did the original phrase come out the same.

We still play this game today, even if we don’t realize it. Between news blurbs and social media posts, the act of scaling complex issues to 50 words or 140 characters causes a significant loss of key details. In today’s world, we don’t often take the time to delve deeper and find out the information behind the headlines.

One of the best examples comes all the way from 1994 and the infamous case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, also known as the “hot coffee” case. First reports indicated an elderly woman, Stella Liebeck, sued McDonalds after spilling coffee on herself while driving, winning over $2.7 million. However, this was simply not true. In fact, the car wasn’t even moving. Liebeck had been in the passenger seat of a vehicle parked in the McDonalds’ parking lot, and the spill resulted in 3rd degree burns on 13 percent of her body.

Originally, she simply asked McDonalds to cover her medical expenses totaling $10,000, but when the multinational corporation countered with $800, Liebeck took McDonalds to court. To most people’s surprise, the $2.7 million figure was not actually the correct amount Stella received, it was merely a suggested amount by the jury as damages for McDonald’s serving too hot of coffee.

The figure was roughly two days

27

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

worth of McDonald’s coffee sales. In actuality, the judge in the case reduced the amount to $640,000, but the two parties reached a settlement outside of court and the true amount has been withheld from public record.

In this case alone, the sensationalization of an interesting story into a national media showcase caused the true details of the case to be muddled to an alarming degree. This trend holds true throughout social and news media— an issue that must continuously be put in the spotlight.

This trend of oversimplification is increasing due to the exponential growth of technology and instantly accessible information. Each bit of information is competing for our attention— the freshest crops on our Farmville farms are ready to be harvested, we have 17 missed text notifications and news alerts about the impending implosion of the health care system buzz across the screen. These stimuli constantly pop up as you viciously attempt to tap past the ads on the latest video posted to your virtual wall.

Each of these sources must continue to market themselves as relevant, useful and fun. Most importantly, it must be concise enough to maintain a user’s attention span. This trend appears most concerning when it comes to news.

News isn’t fun. Frankly, there aren’t a lot of heartwarming, positive stories out right now. Media is a business. As such, what reporters cover is contingent on what kinds of stories will grab the reader’s attention as well as the beliefs of the owners of the media companies.

The technology boom substantially increased the size of the news audience, and more demand created

more supply. The introduction of smart phones resulted in the development of thousands of apps specifically designed to report the news at the tap of a finger.

Unfortunately, the technology boom has also led to the development of thousands of websites and blogs masquerading as legitimate news outlets. This phenomenon has become particularly evident in younger generations. Social media’s ease of sharing gives “false news” websites such popularity that in the minds of readers they become credible sources.

Individuals absorb news information presented to them via social media without any skepticism or obligation to check facts. Too often has The Onion, a satirical news website, been cited as fact on the walls of my fellow social networkers. Social media is simply a vessel for “facts” presented by these false news websites, similar to established news outlets being vessels for actual news. The difference is credibility, established by organizations like CNN, Associated Press, CBS, NBC— not by Facebook or Twitter.

As social media platforms continue to grow, the trend of misinformation is inevitable. Tech giants like Apple and Samsung will continue to create products with sleeker designs and operating systems allowing for even easier access to apps and information from news outlets and social media. In light of this continuous innovation, we must challenge our attention spans to push past blurbs and tweets to once again crave the facts, not just the flashy titles.

Justin Dwyer is a junior Law Politics and Society and Politics double major.

He is the Social Issues Section Editor for Drake Political Review.

“YOU CAN’T SIT WITH US.”

CONGRESS: OUR NATION’S LEAST POPULAR INSTITUTION ARTICLE BY: SAMUEL DALEY

L

ess approachable than cockroaches and your mother-in-law. More despised than lice and jury duty.

Worse than long lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles and even hipsters, Congress has polled at a shocking three percent approval rating by registered voters.

Earlier this year, Public Policy Polling found Congress was also less popular than the band Nickelback, NFL replacement referees, world conqueror Genghis Khan and France. As a proud American, this is disappointing to say the least. Since every concert, sporting event and political rally seems to erupt in “USA” chants, it’s difficult to see why our own government structure is so unpopular among these very people.

While it seems like nothing in the world could be less popular than the highest legislative body in our country, Congress currently has a slightly higher approval rating than Miley Cyrus, Ebola and serial killers. Our legislative body and democratic lifeblood is only slightly more popular than a virus that the Center for Disease Control reports has killed over 5,000 people in the last few months.

I decided to bring it home to Des Moines and challenged my fellow Bulldogs to consider their personal thoughts on Congress— our very own “Congress Is Less Popular Than…” list. It turns out that Congress ranks lower than some of our least favorite things, including “Hubbell Trouble,” Drake Public Safety’s “Timely Alerts,” being confused for a Duke student and “Drake Lake.” It is a sad reality, but it looks like Drake students would rather have those terrible post-Hubbell stomach pains than our current Congress.

With all joking aside, an 86 percent congressional job disapproval rating is terribly alarming. In a recent poll, NBC

FALL 2014 | 28

LET’S TALK POLITICS

News, The Wall Street Journal, and Marist College determined that only three percent of registered voters thought Congress was being “productive.” What is causing Congress’s poor approval rating amongst the public?

To most Americans, it appears that Democrats’ and Republicans’ polar-opposite views on many important and contemporary issues are causing the gridlock within Congress. The American public wants to see progress in creating meaningful legislation, yet this blatant refusal to cooperate has caused many Americans to lose faith in our law-making body.

The media doesn’t necessarily aid in the partisan bickering. National Media, a Republican ad-buying firm, released some thought-provoking data that showed the nation’s stark division when it came to viewing A&E’s Duck Dynasty. The Washington Post’s Reid Wilson explains that, according to the data, “Republicans were about 50 percent more likely to tune in to the season premiere than Democrats...there is a red America and a blue America.”

This pattern isn’t unique to reality TV. Fox News viewership is 39 percent self-identifying Republicans, where only 18 percent of CNN viewership identifies as Republican according to a study by the Pew Research Center. Americans are viewing shows that are affirming, not informing, their beliefs.

The media also play into these low Congressional approval ratings because many news stations love to report on Congressional scandals and stagnation. Let’s face it— political scandals are sexy. Which would you rather tune into? A political pundit’s ranting about a conflict-ridden Congress or the passing of a bill that funds highway infrastructure?

The media’s portrayal of Congress seems to expose the losers, while purposefully masking the winners.

29

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

Progress in Congress is often overshadowed by the media, causing Congress to come off as a greedy, self-interested and immoral legislating body that fails to consider the American public when creating laws.

However, the media and voters share responsibility to work toward change. Gallup revealed that constituents gave their own representatives an average of 30 percent higher approval rating that Congress as a whole. This implies that these constituents believe that their choice for Congressional Representative is right, while all other districts’ choices are wrong. Voters need to realize that the choices we make are

“ Congress currently has a slightly higher approval rating than Miley Cyrus, Ebola and serial killers.” sometimes wrong, yet these choices can be reversed through voting.

Yet, in every election, more and more Americans hope to see congressional reform. According to a recent Gallup poll, 22 percent of voters polled would rather see every member of Congress fired and replaced than to see the congressional gridlock plaguing our government. If this statistic makes you feel uncomfortable, it should.

Congress was created to be a strong voice for the people, yet a majority of Americans are losing trust in this vital branch of the government.

This could be the cause of recent apathy toward voting. Only a dismal

36.4 percent of the voting-eligible public turned out to vote in the midterm elections- the lowest national voting turnout since World War II. Iowa turned out 50.6 percent of its eligible voter base. Though this may seem like a victory, as it is significantly higher than the national average, let’s put it into perspective: half of the people in Iowa that could vote did not care enough to show up at the polls.

What can we, as the American public, do to boost congressional approval ratings and create an overall happier and more functional constituency? We can become more educated on the issues and our politicians. Whether it is reading the newspaper, Drake Political Review, or a credible online news source, everyone can do their part to become more informed on contemporary topics. And we can show up to the polls. Politics affects each and every American, whether they know it or not. Educated voting is one of the most important civic duties that we can practice and it ensures that every person can get his or her voice and opinions heard.

Congress has the chance to become a positive symbol of American freedom and democracy again.

Becoming more educated and more involved will ensure that Congress will finally have a higher approval rating than Hubbell, the DMV and zombies. Congress’s approval would balloon if our diligent research and voting led to confidence in the people we elect to represent us.

Let’s do Congress a favor. Help give it a popularity makeover.

Samuel Daley is a junior Law, Politics and Society and Politics double major.

He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

SOCIAL ISSUES

YOU’RE GETTING WARMER FINDING A SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE BY UNCOVERING THE FACTS ARTICLE BY: CHRIS FAIRBANK ILLUSTRATION BY: KAREN KALTENHEUSER

FALL 2014 | 30

LET’S TALK POLITICS

C

urrently, the Earth’s oceans are warming, its ice caps are melting and temperatures are increasing. However, the topic of climate change is still up for debate despite the fact 95 percent of climate researchers actively publish climate papers endorsing the theory that humans are a contributing factor to global warming. So with the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence, why do many still deny that climate change is man made? Let’s take a moment and break down the science behind this hot button issue.

GREENHOUSE-GASES

NASA observed CO2 levels in our atmosphere have risen 25 percent higher than the highest point in the past 650,000 years before the Industrial Revolution.

Most climate scientists agree the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil are the primary causes of this increase, which is also the main cause of global climate change.

Although it is true past fluctuations in temperature have been caused by small variations in the Earth’s orbit, there is no scientific dispute over the effects of greenhouse gases on the rise of global temperatures.

However, this hasn’t stopped many from continuing to identify justifications for their denials that climate change is man made. “The emissions that are being put in the air by [an Icelandic] volcano are a thousand years’ worth of emissions that would come from all of the vehicles [and] all of the manufacturing in Europe,” Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski says. In reality, all of the Earth’s volcanoes produce less than one percent of the annual human CO2 output. There have been claims the glacier-melting predictions have been exaggerated even while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assessment report has held up under rigorous, independent scrutiny. Or the statement the globe has already stopped warming altogether… which the science community says isn’t true.

31

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

In fact, the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years, with 2013 being tied for fourth. This also marks the 37th straight year where the global temperatures have been above the long-term average. As we continue to debate the human effects on our environment, the fact still remains that in America, we are responsible for 19.8 tons of carbon emission per person annually.

RISING SEA LEVELS

Now let’s be honest, the oceans are pretty neat. They retain heat in the winter and stay cool in the summer, which has provided the Earth with the moderate temperatures conducive for life. However, with the increase of global temperatures, arctic and glacial ice has begun to melt. Not surprisingly, the effect of this runoff is a rise in sea levels. Over the last one hundred years, the sea level rose 6.7 inches. Although this may seem insignificant, the rate over the past decade is nearly double that of the past century, which many argue is cause for alarm.

When sea levels rise rapidly, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. Aside from the flooding of wetlands, we can expect to see destructive saltwater erosion, contamination of aquifers and agricultural soils and the disappearance of natural habitats for fish, birds and plants.

Higher sea levels will lead to larger, more powerful storm surges. If the process continues the millions of inhabitants currently living in affected areas would be forced to abandon their homes and relocate as cities like New Orleans and Venice, Italy, become flooded. Scientists also hypothesize some low-lying islands would be submerged all together.

A recent study estimates that by 2100, we can expect to see the oceans rise between 2.5 to 6.5 feet, which would swamp many cities along the East Coast. This could be great news for waterpark

enthusiasts, but probably doesn’t interest the average New Yorker.

EXTREME WEATHER

Sure, Hollywood has done a wonderful job romanticizing the epic storm, but the thought of that fantasy becoming reality is a sobering one. As our climate continues to change, we can expect more extreme weather such as tropical storms, droughts and wildfires. Naturally, all of these events are disastrous to wildlife and ecosystems as well as the people who live there. But extreme weather is also crippling to the economy. According to a study from the National Climate Data Center, weather disasters have cost the United States over $1 trillion since 1980. But there are countless other ripple effects that have yet to be adequately considered, specifically in terms of our energy infrastructure.

Power outages are becoming more common, oil and gas in the Gulf are more susceptible to hurricanes, coal transport by train and barge are at risk of intensified flooding, and electricity generation will be limited in the Southwest by water shortages. All of these instances, and more, will have a significant impact on our everyday lives.

Science supports the reality of climate change and that it is occurring. Whether you support the science community’s claims that it is man made or not, it is my hope we can move past arguing about the science and begin to focus on the solution. As Leonardo DiCaprio says, “This is not a partisan debate: it is a human one. Clean air and water and a livable climate are inalienable human rights. And solving this crisis is not a question of politics, it is our moral obligation.”

Chris Fairbank is a senior Marketing major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

LOCAL POLITICS

READY FOR WHAT?

PROVIDING SOME PERSPECTIVE ON HILLARY CLINTON’S POTENTIAL PRESIDENTIAL BID ARTICLE BY: OLIVIA O’HEA “Are you ready for Hillary?” an intern asks a crowd of about 80 at a Hillary 2016 event this summer.

The crowd cheers in response. It is a group composed primarily of women and millennials— Hillary’s early supporters hoping to eventually register voters, knock on doors and urge friends and family to vote Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Events like these have occurred across the United States in the past few months. Ready for Hillary, an independent political action committee (PAC), has organized a ‘pre-campaign tour.’ According to its website, the PAC operates with the mission of “laying the groundwork for her [Hillary’s] candidacy.”

Ready for Hillary has garnered more than 50,000 grassroots donors

and two million supporters since its founding in January 2013. Just over 2 million users like the movement’s “Ready for Hillary” Facebook account, which, for perspective, is more than the total population of states like Nebraska and Maine.

Ready for Hillary intentionally targets millennials through nearly all social media platforms, which send daily updates on potential campaign activity as well as stops on the tour.

Beyond Ready for Hillary, Clinton’s potential campaign has gathered serious media attention.

Time recently ran a feature story on her potential campaign, and media outlets have made predictions about her platform, announcement date and even running mate.

However, the buzz around Clinton seems to leave out one

significant fact: she has not officially declared her candidacy.

Most candidates form exploratory committees before considering a bid, and file paperwork with the FEC before announcing. Currently, Clinton has done neither of these.

Though Clinton has yet to make any official announcement, she certainly hasn’t denied the rumors.

Her twitter bio reads “Wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, US Senator, SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD...” and she’s been quoted multiple times supporting the idea that a woman could and should be president.

During the 2014 Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, Clinton greeted the crowd and declared she had “a

FALL 2014 | 32

LET’S TALK POLITICS

big announcement” before smiling and saying “no, not that thing.”

She then shared that her daughter, Chelsea, was expecting a baby, and asked the crowd to excuse her if she and Bill had to leave in a hurry.

It’s clear the Ready for Hillary movement has grown rapidly over the past year, and she is doing little to stop the rumor mill. Yet the countless rallies and massive donations overshadow a critical question: is Hillary ready for a presidential race?

Clinton is no stranger to political controversy. While many think she would be a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination, her road to the White House would certainly be long and strenuous.

BENGHAZI AND FOREIGN POLICY

Clinton’s most recent and arguably most public scandal is still under investigation. The terrorist attacks on an American diplomatic compound in Bengahzi, Libya occurred in 2012, but many analysts predict the ongoing investigation lead by Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will continue through 2016— tarnishing Clinton’s image as a foreign affairs expert.

HEALTH CARE

Issues beyond Clinton’s campaign will also likely affect her platform. All democratic candidates will face the bulwark that is the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The PPACA is under intense scrutiny from both sides of the aisle, and Gallup reported last October the majority of Americans disapprove of or disagree with the plan. Furthermore, 57 [percent of Republicans polled supported repealing the law entirely, an opinion likely to be reflected in a conservative presidential platform.

As Clinton ran on a health care platform similar to PPACA in the 2008 primaries, she will now need to prove that she has an efficient and stable health care plan that will please both Republicans and Democrats.

33

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

MIDTERMS AND MILLENNIALS

Moreover, the results of the November midterm elections overwhelmingly removed the Democrat majority in Congress. Many supporters worry Clinton’s public support of losing candidates, such as Iowa’s Staci Appel and Bruce Braley, will negatively impact her potential 2016 race. Others fear consistent low millennial voter turnout— which came in at about 21.3 percent during the November midterms— will impact Clinton’s campaign.

The New York Times reported the midterms presented a mixed bag for Clinton. Although she would face a divided executive and legislative branch, many analysts see this as an opportunity for Clinton to revive the Democratic party. The Democrat nominee in 2016 will inevitably become the face of the party, and with notable potential opponents like Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, Clinton would need to develop a comprehensive campaign blueprint.

IMAGE ISSUES

Clinton’s history with primaries also presents a potential issue. By the end of 2007 many analysts predicted a strong Clinton win, yet as the campaign wound down she began to lose support of necessary swing states. After an upset loss in Iowa, The Washington Post even published a ‘eulogy’ for Clinton’s campaign.

Several themes emerged after Clinton’s 2008 loss— primarily that she had an image issue. In crucial states like Iowa she came off as too elitist, in blue states like New Hampshire she came off as out of touch. Her defining campaign theme became “action over rhetoric,”while Obama’s popularity skyrocketed with his iconic “Change” mantra.

WOMEN IN OFFICE

Clinton’s gender will play a role in the campaign, and not a positive one. The idea of a female presi-

dent is even controversial among women; Michelle Bachmann, a Congresswoman from Minnesota, was quoted in February saying there is no “pent up desire” to see a woman in the chief executive office.

Women in leadership roles still face global criticism as well. Josefina Vazquez Mota, Mexico’s first female presidential candidate, faced intense disapproval during her campaign, with one reporter asking how she would manage an army if she were having menstrual cramps.

The Ready for Hillary PAC seems confident they can help Clinton overcome these initial hurdles, and give her a grassroots boost in the 2016 race. Despite Clinton’s potential roadblocks, she still remains one of the most popular, and most controversial, leaders in the Democratic party.

Democrats have floated ideas of a Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren campaign, yet both politicians have stated on record they are not considering— and in Warren’s case would not accept— a nomination or even a primary race. This leaves Clinton to lead the pack as a popular and well-known potential candidate.

Clinton’s early voter base cannot compensate for the many issues that can, and likely will, arise during her potential campaign as the election looms closer. Her stances on Benghazi, health care, sexism and a host of other issues will reveal themselves.

However, to assume she has a straightforward path to the White House is nowhere close to the truth.

Olivia O’Hea is a junior Law, Politics and Society and Public Relations double major. She is a Copy Editor for Drake Political Review.

LOCAL POLITICS

THE DEBT DEBATE

DOES COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY STRIKE YOU AS AN OXYMORON? IT SHOULD. ARTICLE BY: BRIANNA STEIRER

A

s college students in 2014, we have a lot to look forward to - including spending the majority of our adult lives drowning in student loan debt.

As we saw in the recent midterm elections, college affordability was a hotbed issue and at this rate, we can expect no less of a focus on college affordability coming up in 2016.

If you followed the midterm elections in Iowa, you heard gubernatorial candidate and Drake University graduate Jack Hatch voice his plan to make college tuition more affordable for Iowans. His plan included state-sponsored low-interest loan programs as well as an accelerated Bachelor of Arts program aimed at helping students graduate in three years instead of four.

He was not the only voice expressing a need for college loan reform. Iowa’s new Senator Elect, Joni Ernst, also highlighted a need for a new college affordability

69% GRAPHIC BY: GRETTA GILLEN

OF IOWA UNDERGRADS HAVE STUDENT LOAN DEBT

9

plan on a federal level. Ernst called for eliminating the federal Direct Loan Program as well as the Department of Education and making necessary services, such as Pell grants, available by other agencies or at the state level. Ernst claims that this would eliminate the bureaucratic red tape surrounding college loans and make it a more efficient and affordable system.

But what’s all the fuss about?

According to the Project on Student Debt, Iowa is sittin’ pretty as number nine on the list of states with the most student debt— with the average student graduating $29,370 in the hole. In fact, 69 percent of the Class of 2013 from all Iowan public and private nonprofit four-year institutions graduated with debt.

If that isn’t enough to sober you up, take a look at how Drake University is doing. The class of 2013 graduated with 63 percent of students in debt and an average debt

th HIGHEST IN

U.S. STUDENT LOAN DEBT

of $32,106. A year prior, The Iowa College Student Aid Commission reported that the Drake University Class of 2012 accumulated a total debt of $12, 203, 276.

Not only is student loan tough on the graduate, but it is not exactly the prized jewel of the US economy either. Both the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors expressed concerns that large amounts of student debt can inhibit recent college grads from qualifying for loans and many are resorting to savings in order to afford down payments. As we learned from the 2007 housing bubble crash, the housing market plays a key role in the success of our economy.

“Student debt diminishes entrepreneurship and small-business growth,” writes Rohit Chopra, the the student loan ombudsman for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “High student debt burdens

TOTAL DRAKE DEBT ON GRADUATION (2012)

AVERAGE DEBT OF DRAKE GRADS:

$32,106

FALL 2014 | 34

LET’S TALK POLITICS

require these individuals to take more cash out of their business so they can make monthly student loan payments.” Without the extra cash in their pockets, young professionals are not likely to take the risks associated with starting a new business.

With about 60 percent of jobs being created by small businesses, it’s pretty simple: no new small businesses, no more small business jobs, no economic stimulation.

Excessive student loan debt also affects areas like retirement security, health care, education and countless other sectors of the economy.

However, this hasn’t always been the case. Only a decade ago, The New York Times reports, the federal student loan debt was about $300 billion. To those of us that don’t

function well with the -illions, lets just say that is a big chunk of change.

Until you take a look at today’s numbers. Today’s federal outstanding student loans have ballooned past $1.1 trillion— about three and a half times what the debt was a decade ago.

This dramatic inflation of student loan debt may be why it is such a go-to talking point in recent races.

There is no single cause for this rise in outstanding debt. However, the unemployment rate of college graduates has been steadily increasing, making it more and more difficult for grads to pay the bills, let alone pay off their student loans. This, coupled with the influx of high school graduates going on to pursue a college degrees, has been a large contributing factor to the federal student loan

debt— which is now second only to mortgages for occupying the most room in the federal debt.

The current state of student loan debt, both on a federal level and in Iowa, is abysmal no matter how you cut the cake, which is why the midterm races were flooded with candidates pandering to the college student vote with varying solutions to the issue. If you thought this was over in 2014, I have bad news for you— the issue isn’t disappearing any faster than your student loan debt.

Brianna Steirer is a junior Law, Politics and Society, Politics and Rehtoric triple major. She is a Editor-in-Chief for Drake Political Review.

GRAPHIC BY: SUSANNA HAYWARD

35

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

WANTS YOU INTERESTED IN JOINING THE CONVERSATION? WRITE FOR US. DRAKEPOLITICALREVIEW@GMAIL.COM LET’S TALK POLITICS.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOLUME I | ISSUE I