Duke Political Review Spring 2016 Vol. 3 Issue 2 by Duke Political Review

Duke Political Review The State of State Parties By Sarah Sibley

Austerity and Electoral Success By Gautam Hathi

Partisan Redistricting and American Politics By Connor Phillips

The Elections Issue SPRING 2016

SPRING 2016 / VOLUME III / ISSUE II DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW DUKEPOLITICALREVIEW.ORG1

Editors-in-Chief Michael Pelle and Natalie Ritchie Online Managing Editor Connor Phillips Chief-of-Staff Sam Skinner

Last year, Ray Li and Jacob Zionce taught us how to say to goodbye to their wonderful creation that is DPR—and now it’s our turn to give up the reins. It’s been an incredible year and we can’t wait to see what comes next. We couldn’t feel more confident that Zach Gorwitz and Connor Phillips will work non-stop to blow us all away, building on the success the publication has had in its first three years. Heading into the 2016 elections, doubtlessly one of the most unpredictable cycles of our time, it seems fitting to focus this issue on the democratic process. Connor Phillips takes on the “blood sport” of partisan redistricting, challenging the notion that it drives polarization but identifying even deeper implications for the state of civil discourse. Sarah Sibley asks what happened to party bosses, arguing for stronger local political machines. And Gautam Hathi examines how European political leaders have won shocking victories in the age of austerity. The issue also features several of our DPR Dispatches, articles written by our correspondents at primaries and caucuses around the country. We are so proud of the work our writers have done this past year covering the campaigns and are excited to highlight it here. And now, reflecting on the past year, we want to stop and look around at how lucky we are to have had the chance to be part of such an incredible group of people. Thank you to everyone who has helped us along the way, who have given countless hours to this publication. To our senior staff, especially, we extend our thanks for the hard work you put in to keep everything running—and for dealing with our endless supply of Hamilton references. Finally, to our founders and alums, thank you for entrusting us with DPR. We hope we’ve done you proud.

60 Seconds Managing Editor Liz McGlamry Business, Marketing, and Programming Director Whitney Hazard

Contents SPRING 2016 / VOLUME III / ISSUE II

Interviews Managing Editor Zachary Gorwitz Features Managing Editor Maya Durvasula Art and Layout Director Adam Beyer Deputy Online Managing Editor Shobana Subramanian

DISPATCHES

Dear Reader,

Columnists Alexander Doan, David Wohlever Sanchez, Hillary Song, Jack Minchew, Jesse Remedios, Mac Findlay, Michelle Krogius, Michelle Li, Nate Sizemore, Sarah Sibley, Weiyao Wang Contributing Editors Allen Jones, Dana Raphael, Gautam Hathi, Parker Fox Editors-at-Large Alena Sadiq, Amulya Vadapalli, Anna Kaul, Daniel Dorchuck, Jay Ruckelshaus, Shannon Beckham, Tanner Lockhead

11 14

Copy Editors Jess Garda, Jessica Tanner, Steve Hassey

COMMENTARY

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK

Duke Political Review

60 Seconds Associate Editors Henry Miller, Sydney Smith 60 Seconds Staff Writers Aakash Jain, Alex Carbonelli, Charles Miller, Chinmay Pandit, Connor Gunderson, Isabel Giacomazzi, Jacob Glasser, Meredith Cash, Natasha Torrens

Interviews Associate Editors Annie Adair, Jay Sullivan Interviews Staff Writers Allison Huang, Kyra Noonan, Lucy Zhang

35 26

IN-DEPTH

Business, Marketing, and Programming Associates Amy Wang, Bella Rivera, Brad Hanson, Emilie Padgett, John Caldwell, Maddie Merkle

With love,

Associate Features Editor Shaker Samman

Natalie Ritchie Editor-in-Chief

Deputy Chief of Staff William Wei Ran Tong

On the cover: Photo from Wikimedia Commons. All photos on opposite page are from Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Q&A

Michael Pelle Editor-in-Chief

ELECTIONS

Features Contributors and Staff Writers Claire Boyd, Jane Kaufman, Joey Dolan-Galaviz, Rachel Sereix

BERN DOWN FOR WHAT?

SEARCHING FOR LOVE AT A TRUMP RALLY

6 7 8

FRUSTRATION, GOD, AND INDEPENDENTS

By Charlie Miller

By David Wohlever Sanchez

By Mac FIndlay

RUBIO LOOKS TO ENDRSEMENTS FOR HOPE By Michelle Krogius

INSIDE THE CAUCUS ROOM By Michael Pelle

HILLARY CLINTON: HAWK OR DOVE?

YEMEN’S TURMOIL AND ITS BROADER IMPLICATIONS

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S OIL TAX FANTASY

DROUGHT, SYRIA, AND ISIS

OPEN INNOVATION AND DEMOCRACY IN THE CROWD

CHINA’S NEW NATIONALISM

31 35 38

THE STATE OF STATE PARTIES

By Mac Findlay

By Nate Sizemore

By Allen Jones

By Henry Miller

By Jay Sullivan

By Matthew King

By Sarah Sibley

HOW TO WIN AN ELECTION UNDER AUSTERITY By Gautam Hathi

PARTISAN REDISTRICTING AND AMERICAN POLITICS By Connor Phillips

42 THE 2016 ELECTIONS FROM CAPITOL HILL 45 CRAFTING A NUCLEAR DEAL By Alex Song and Khloe Kim By Alison Huang

FALL 2015

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

Editors-in-Chief Michael Pelle and Natalie Ritchie Online Managing Editor Connor Phillips Chief-of-Staff Sam Skinner

60 Seconds Managing Editor Liz McGlamry Business, Marketing, and Programming Director Whitney Hazard

Contents SPRING 2016 / VOLUME III / ISSUE II

Interviews Managing Editor Zachary Gorwitz Features Managing Editor Maya Durvasula Art and Layout Director Adam Beyer Deputy Online Managing Editor Shobana Subramanian

DISPATCHES

Dear Reader,

11 14

Copy Editors Jess Garda, Jessica Tanner, Steve Hassey

COMMENTARY

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK

Duke Political Review

Interviews Associate Editors Annie Adair, Jay Sullivan Interviews Staff Writers Allison Huang, Kyra Noonan, Lucy Zhang

35 26

IN-DEPTH

Business, Marketing, and Programming Associates Amy Wang, Bella Rivera, Brad Hanson, Emilie Padgett, John Caldwell, Maddie Merkle

With love,

Associate Features Editor Shaker Samman

Natalie Ritchie Editor-in-Chief

Deputy Chief of Staff William Wei Ran Tong

On the cover: Photo from Wikimedia Commons. All photos on opposite page are from Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Q&A

Michael Pelle Editor-in-Chief

ELECTIONS

Features Contributors and Staff Writers Claire Boyd, Jane Kaufman, Joey Dolan-Galaviz, Rachel Sereix

BERN DOWN FOR WHAT?

SEARCHING FOR LOVE AT A TRUMP RALLY

6 7 8

FRUSTRATION, GOD, AND INDEPENDENTS

By Charlie Miller

By David Wohlever Sanchez

By Mac FIndlay

RUBIO LOOKS TO ENDRSEMENTS FOR HOPE By Michelle Krogius

INSIDE THE CAUCUS ROOM By Michael Pelle

HILLARY CLINTON: HAWK OR DOVE?

YEMEN’S TURMOIL AND ITS BROADER IMPLICATIONS

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S OIL TAX FANTASY

DROUGHT, SYRIA, AND ISIS

OPEN INNOVATION AND DEMOCRACY IN THE CROWD

CHINA’S NEW NATIONALISM

31 35 38

THE STATE OF STATE PARTIES

By Mac Findlay

By Nate Sizemore

By Allen Jones

By Henry Miller

By Jay Sullivan

By Matthew King

By Sarah Sibley

HOW TO WIN AN ELECTION UNDER AUSTERITY By Gautam Hathi

PARTISAN REDISTRICTING AND AMERICAN POLITICS By Connor Phillips

42 THE 2016 ELECTIONS FROM CAPITOL HILL 45 CRAFTING A NUCLEAR DEAL By Alex Song and Khloe Kim By Alison Huang

FALL 2015

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

DPR DISPATCHES

DPR Dispatches On-the-ground coverage of the presidential primary

Bern Down for What?

Not letting his Republican adversaries off the hook, Sanders called into question their self-proclaimed “family values.” According to Mr. Sanders, these values include the idea that a woman should not have the right to control her own body and that “our gay brothers and sisters” should not be able to get married. In a highly substantive and policyoriented speech, Sanders appealed to his North Carolina constituents, young and old, by focusing on trade, education, and Social Security. Agreeing that trade is not a “sexy” issue, Sanders emphasized its importance, highlighting his opposition to NAFTA

and the TPP— trade agreements that he claimed make Americans compete for jobs with desperate foreign workers. Sanders also spoke of the country’s need for a $15 an hour “living wage” and increased Social Security benefits for its senior citizens. The largest cheers of the day came when Sanders affirmed his position that every student should be allowed to refinance their college debt at the lowest possible rates and should have access to free public universities, paid for by a “tax on Wall Street speculation.” Sanders pleaded with voters to come out and vote in Tuesday’s primary. If enough people vote on Tuesday, he

said, his campaign could pull off a victory similar to Michigan. Hillary Clinton is the far and away favorite to win the Democratic primary in North Carolina. The Bernie Sanders Campaign doesn’t care. Sanders’s positive message to his base has his supporters hopeful; they see no reason to stop dancing, cheering, or fighting. As one sign read, “Bern down for what?” Charlie Miller is Trinity sophomore from Phoenix, Arizona majoring in history. He is a 60 Seconds staff writer for DPR.

By Charlie Miller - March 13, 2016

was blown away by the energy of Friday’s Bernie Sanders rally in Raleigh. “Feel the Bern,” a phrase that has become synonymous with the campaign, was used as a greeting and a goodbye between non-acquainted rally-goers. Chants of, “Not me, us,” “This is what Democracy looks like,” and, “We, are, the ninety-nine percent,” were frequent and often. People danced and sang as speakers blasted “Power to the People” by John Lennon, “Revolution” by

Flogging Molly, and “Make a Change” by Buckwheat Zydeco. While Mr. Sanders was outside the Duke Energy Performing Arts Center addressing the thousands of overflow supporters who couldn’t get in, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was inside getting the crowd fired up. Gabbard reminded the crowd that she stepped down as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee in order to endorse Sanders. She spoke of her military service, and proclaimed

Add Caption

Photo by Charlie Miller.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

that Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that will “put a stop to these unnecessary regime-change wars” as Commander-in-Chief. Once inside the convention center, Sanders reminded his North Carolina supporters that his campaign is perpetually declared the underdog. Drawing laughs, and showing a goodnatured sense of humor, Sanders remembered out loud when he first declared his candidacy. The pundits, he said, “Thought I was a nice guy, and a GQ dresser, but not a serious candidate.” Continuing this theme of exceeding expectations, Sanders recalled his upset win in Michigan, a state almost all political commentators believed would swing to Hillary Clinton. Highlighting his differences from Mrs. Clinton, Sanders spoke about what he calls a “corrupt campaign finance system.” Sanders called the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Koch brothers pour into campaigns evidence of an oligarchy, not a democracy. He questioned Clinton’s ability to be a “real agent for change” while simultaneously receiving millions of dollars from Wall Street donors. Per usual, Sanders touted his campaign’s vast number of individual contributions averaging $27 each.

Searching for Love at a Trump Rally By David Wohlever Sanchez- March 11, 2016

ou would never have guessed it, but love was in the air at Donald J. Trump’s March 9th rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. At least according to Mr. Trump, although he’s not exactly considered the most reliable source of truth. During the speech, as one of many protesters was removed by security, Mr. Trump said, “I don’t know why, but I love it. Am I crazy? I love this. I love it.” Through the eyes of an impassioned Trump supporter, the night was a wild success: Mr. Trump spoke with command, security tossed out protesters by the dozens, and America was on track to be great again. Chants of “USA, USA” and “Trump, Trump, Trump” echoed through the spacious stadium with freakish frequency. But through my eyes, the eyes of a person who showed up to observe and think, the night was nothing more than a circus, a circus com-

plete with an adoring audience, a few nifty tricks, and a demagogic ringleader. In typical Trump fashion, there was no teleprompter in sight. As the crowd of nearly 11,000 cheered him on, Mr. Trump jumped from subject to subject with little coherent direction. That didn’t stop the massive audience from applauding him, waving signs boasting their support for the celebrity billionaire. Like a rock star, Trump interacted with the audience, feeding off of their energy. At one point, Trump paused his speech and walked over to someone holding a “Veterans for Trump” poster. He brought it on stage and marveled at it, evoking more cheers from the crowd. The event was exactly what one would have expected from a Trump rally, full of promises to protect the Second Amendment, build a wall (that Mexico would pay for), “make good deals,” bring back wa-

terboarding (and worse), and, of course, Make America Great Again. His words, in a way we’ve come to expect, were often repetitive and lacking in substance. The speech was more of a self-celebration than a discussion of policy solutions. Boasting about his big wins in the primaries, he mocked “Lying Ted” and “Little Marco,” and constantly criticized the media who awkwardly continued to film him from the floor. As would be expected, not everybody in the audience was on board with his rhetoric. ABC News reported that Mr. Trump was interrupted by protesters at least 17 times (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was more). Often when Mr. Trump was speaking, it seemed that about half of the crowd was distracted by the demonstrations. As troubling as the environment in the stadium was, the most compelling (and concerning) moments of the night took place outside of

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

DPR DISPATCHES

DPR Dispatches On-the-ground coverage of the presidential primary

Bern Down for What?

By Charlie Miller - March 13, 2016

Add Caption

Photo by Charlie Miller.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Searching for Love at a Trump Rally By David Wohlever Sanchez- March 11, 2016

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

DPR DISPATCHES

the stadium well after Mr. Trump left the stage. Masses of protesters and Trump supporters amassed on either side of a road in the parking lot, jeering at each other, chanting at each other, and mocking each other. They were separated by a wall of police officers, and I would prefer not to imagine what could have happened had they not been there. While the protesters were chanting, a man in a motorcycle drove up behind them and revved his engine, drowning out their voices for a few minutes. Eventually, he was told to stop and drive away, but he couldn’t; the motorcycle wouldn’t drive. Apparently, in his quest to silence the protesters, he had damaged his engine. He had to push it out of the way. This level of division, which has

plagued Mr. Trump’s campaign, was in direct contrast to Mr. Trump’s declarations. Commenting on the atmosphere of the crowd during the speech, he proudly declared, “When I make speeches, there’s so much love in the room... There’s so much love in these rooms.” Where was this love? Was it in the jeers at a man whose shirt declared that “love is the answer”? Was it in the eyes of a man who punched a protester as he was being escorted out? Was it found on the street outside, where the wall of police separated the protesters from the supporters? Or was it in the words of Mr. Trump, who swore to bring back waterboarding and other instruments of torture? “There’s so much love in these rooms.” Mr. Trump, I was in that room,

and I can say this with utmost certainty, sincerity, and solidarity: I have no idea what you’re talking about. There wasn’t love. There wasn’t compassion. There was jeering, there were obscene posters, there were divisive and racially charged chants, there were frightening pledges of support. There was, I am pained to write, visible hatred—a hatred I have never before observed in this great nation. So regardless of wherever that love was last night, Mr. Trump still leads in every North Carolina poll, and he’s on track to be the GOP nominee. Go figure. David Wohlever Sanchez is a Trinity first-year from Orando, FL. A columnist for DPR, he plans to study Public Policy and linguistics.

ment of his stump speech. Rubio focused briefly on what he believes to be failures of the Obama administration, specifically Veterans Affairs and Social Security/Medicare. Relaying a story of calling the VA hotline and being sent to voicemail, he asked for all veterans to raise their hands, personally thanked them, and promised that he would fire any VA employee who was not “doing their job.” The candidate made sure every-

one knew that his mother was on Social Security and Medicare and that he would not make any changes that are bad for her. However, he emphasized, making changes for those 25 years away from retirement is not too much to ask. Rubio ended on a positive note, wanting to leave the audience “with a sense of optimism.” After retelling the story of his immigrant father who achieved the American dream, he offered the same message in a broader sense.

It is important to remember, he stressed, that this is a country where each generation builds on the last. From this, he reminded the audience of their call to action: vote for Rubio and make this the next great American generation. Michelle Krogius is a Pratt firstyear from Laguna Beach, CA majoring in civil and environmental engineering. She is a columnist for DPR.

Frustration, God, and Independents at a Ted Cruz Rally By Mac Findlay - January 30, 2016

Rubio Looks to Endorsements for Hope By Michelle Krogius - February, 19 2016

n Iowa, Rubio proved he has the ability to be the establishment candidate. In New Hampshire, he proved how easily that title can be lost. The endorsements Rubio has captured are significant, and he knows it. Endorsements from three South Carolinian politicians solidify his image as the establishment candidate, and the answer to the outsider status that Trump and Cruz still retain. He’s currently polling third, but, as we saw in Iowa, caucuses and primaries can be unpredictable. He may have the ability to pull into second or even first, but he can’t do it alone. Cue Nikki Haley. The morning after announcing her endorsement, beloved South

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who boasts a 68% approval rating among Republicans, joined Senator Tim Scott and Representative Trey Gowdy at a rally to support Senator Marco Rubio in his quest to capture the Republican nomination. The four gathered at Swamp Rabbit CrossFit Gym in Greenville to proclaim that South Carolina is, in fact, Rubio Country. Capitalizing on his endorsement, Rubio kept Haley onstage throughout his entire stump speech. She would lead the crowd on when to clap and provided many photo-ops that are sure to grace the Senator’s campaign site through the primary. But her presence was not just for look’s sake. Rubio used the company of his fellow politicians to drive home

SPRING 2016

his goal to unite the party, in a way that others, who “pit groups against each other for votes” cannot. The candidate immediately brought out out the same “we need welders not philosophers” speech that became familiar during his stint in New Hampshire, while quipping that perhaps the “300 philosophers” that didn’t vote for him in the Granite State cost him the primary. Moving into foreign policy, Rubio simplified global conflict by saying the world is more dangerous today than ever before. After joking about Kim Jong-Un’s privileged childhood and detailing the military growth he often espouses, he promised to cancel the Iran Deal on his first day in office in perhaps the most emphatic mo-

t a Ted Cruz rally in Wilton, a rural town of 2,800 outside Iowa City, the concern for the future of America was evident. The crowd of older white voters clad in modest flannel was seriously worried about moral degradation among American leaders and society in general. As one elder woman put it, “our country has forgotten God.” Cruz, however, had not. One Cruz supporter named Larry Bradley, a longtime Republican who voted for Reagan in his first election and had caucused for every Republican since Bob Dole, praised Cruz for his consistent conservatism. He pointed to Cruz’s record on constitutional issues, specifically the Second Amendment. Instead of being turned off by Cruz’s isolation among Senate Republicans, Larry celebrated Cruz’s strident and divisive actions in Congress. Unlike the rest of the Washington establishment, he explained excitedly, Cruz did what he said he would do upon arrival in Washington, in-

cluding fighting to the point of a government shutdown to defund Obamacare. “100% of Democrats today are communists, and 90% of Republicans are socialists,” he explained. To him, Cruz was among the only trustworthy candidates. Among the Evangelical crowd, Donald Trump was not very popular. Some called him a fake conservative, one woman decried him as “a wacko,” another voter “conceited” and lacking “concrete ideas.” Given his history with the Democratic Party, one voter warned that he would make deals, based on his bestseller “The Art of the Deal,” instead of “making them make deals with you.” Not all voters at the rally were Cruz supporters, however. At least not upon

arrival. A grandmother-grandson pair sat towards the back of the room and explained their current thoughts. Both were undecided, yet open to supporting Cruz. The woman, Joan Sneddon, was a retired post-office employee and longtime Democrat who believed the party had turned its back on her. After voting for Barack Obama twice, in 2008 and 2012, she had become

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

DPR DISPATCHES

Frustration, God, and Independents at a Ted Cruz Rally By Mac Findlay - January 30, 2016

Rubio Looks to Endorsements for Hope By Michelle Krogius - February, 19 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

DPR DISPATCHES

fed-up with his leadership. She complained, “he has no backbone” and is too “wishy washy.” Some of her Democrat friends had reregistered as Republicans to vote for Trump, and she predicted many more Democrats would make the switch to whoever the Republican nominee was. “America is a great place to live,” she explained, “but I wish we were stronger.” When asked of her thoughts after Cruz’s speech, Joan responded, “I think I’m going to pick up a sign!” pointing to the stack near the door. Joan’s grandson, a student at the University of Iowa, shared her concern for national security, citing

ISIS and denouncing the acceptance of Syrian refugees into the United States under the current vetting system. He, however, was leaning towards voting for Bernie Sanders. While he shared Republicans’ stance on the Second Amendment and foreign policy, he expressed support for Sanders’s domestic proposals on issues like healthcare. The two explained their liking for Sanders, and more apparent, their dislike for Hillary Clinton. Although Cruz and Sanders may be polar opposites on policy, they share an appeal to voters like Joan Sneddon and her grandson given

their frustration with the status quo in Washington and government in general. This attitude was potent among the crowd, perhaps most evident when Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley described last week’s snowstorm. As he explained how the snow forced the government to stop operating, an attendee interrupted and exclaimed “good!” to a crowd erupting in cheers and laughter. Mac Findlay is a Trinity senior from Chicago, IL majoring in economics and history. He is a columnist for DPR, and has volunteered for the Jeb! Campaign.

Inside the Caucus Room: Des Moines Precinct 41 By Michael Pelle - February, 4 2016

hen we arrived at Perkins Elementary School at 6:35PM, we quickly realized it would be an exciting caucus night. The registration line stretched far outside the gym where the vote was set to occur, extending down the hall, out the school’s main doors, and down the sidewalk. The gym was clearly too small to comfortably fit all the caucus-goers. The registration desks stood under one of the basketball hoops, while tables filled with Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley paraphernalia were positioned along the sidelines. Eager campaign staffers distributed stickers and signs. The median age of the group hovered somewhere around 50, with a sizable elderly population. The precinct chair (in charge of counting the votes and submitting the results) became visibly distressed as the gym swelled with voters, unsure how to handle the shortsighted ven-

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ue choice. With about half the voters signed in and standing wherever there was open space, he made a bold announcement he knew would be met with groans and frustration: all voters already signed-in were to go to the parking lot as registration continued inside. It was 34 degrees, and many voters had brought their young children with them. The caucus was set to start at 7:00PM but all knew the process wouldn’t be getting underway until much later. While registration continued inside, campaign staffers struggled to keep supporters enthused about caucusing. If they left, their votes wouldn’t be counted. A Clinton campaign staffer said she was particularly concerned about early departures since the older members of the Clinton crowd would be less willing to stand around in the cold than Sanders’ younger group. Some elderly voters were sent back inside to sit down.

SPRING 2016

The Clinton and Sanders supporters had grouped together at opposite ends of the parking lot. Clinton staffers led cheers of “we believe that we will win” and “madam president,” while the Sanders supporters chanted “feel the Bern.” O’Malley’s meager group stood mostly in silence. At about 7:45PM, with registration concluding inside, we received another announcement from the Precinct Chair: we were moving back into the gym to conduct the voter-count. It would probably be helpful at this point to give some background on how the Iowa Democratic caucuses work, as they are a far cry from the standard secret ballot that most primary voters are used to. All voters arrive by 7:00PM at their assigned precinct (there are 1,681 precincts in Iowa), which is usually a school, church, or some other community meeting place. The total number of people caucusing is then counted, and each campaign can have one per-

son give a speech in support of their candidate. The caucus-goers then divide up by candidate and the totals for each group are tallied. A candidate must have support from at least 15 percent of the total number of voters in order to be considered “viable” (in smaller precincts, the percentage can be higher). If they don’t hit this threshold, then the candidate’s supporters can either regroup with a viable candidate or go home without voting for anyone. Once there are only viable candidates left, a final count is taken and delegates are granted proportionally to that candidate’s share of the vote. What is meant by “delegates” is also complicated. The precincts directly elect county delegates, who go to county conventions (there are 99 counties in Iowa, and thus 99 county conventions). The delegates to the county conventions then elect state and district delegates, who finally select the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The over ten thousand county delegates ultimately translate to just 44 delegates to the National Convention, or about 1 percent of the national total. Back to Monday night. The total number of caucus-goers was counted as everyone reentered the gym from the parking lot. It was packed wallto-wall, and reporters were asked to stand in an alcove by the doorway to allow room for all the voters. The precinct chair joked that he hadn’t chosen the venue, and “If you want to kill somebody, don’t kill me.” To cheers,

he announced that they had shattered previous turnout records for the precinct with 659 total voters. The group, already tired from the delays, nearly unanimously voted to skip the candidate speeches and go straight to a vote count. Clinton supporters stood on one side of the gym, Sanders supporters assembled at the other, and O’Malley voters hovered in a small corner. The crowd grumbled when the Precinct Chair announced that votes would be counted by once again having them exit to the parking lot, this time organized by candidate. First Sanders, then O’Malley, and finally Clinton. The votes were tallied as each person crossed through the doorway in the back of the gym. It was a bit disconcerting how easy it would have been for someone to double-back into the gym through another door and vote twice. The count was 342 for Sanders, 38 for O’Malley, and 279 for Clinton. As expected, the O’Malley supporters had to regroup, and this proved to be the most entertaining part of the night. Although Sanders had a clear majority, regrouping was still important because the precinct’s 14 county delegates were awarded proportionally. If Sanders got 12 more votes, he would get eight delegates to Clinton’s six—any fewer and they would split the delegates evenly. (If you’re really interested in the delegate math, you can read about it on the Iowa Democratic Party website. On Monday night, these figures were tabulated with an iPhone calculator and some back-

of-the-envelope calculations). For the ensuing half-hour, Clinton and Sanders supporters worked to convince the O’Malley voters to come to their side. There was impassioned yelling, feverish arguing between the Clinton and Sanders teams, and impromptu speeches about the candidates’ positions on various issues. At one point, a Clinton campaign staffer addressed O’Malley’s supporters and explained that, as a gay man, he knew Clinton would fight the hardest for LGBTQ equality. He was soon interrupted by a Sanders supporter who said he was also gay, and asserted that Sanders had supported same-sex marriage long before Clinton did. Amid all the commotion a Sanders voter added, “Hillary Clinton likes Nickelback.” To top things off, we received the news that O’Malley was suspending his presidential bid just before his supporters regrouped. Ultimately, 26 O’Malley supporters went to Sanders and 12 went to Clinton, making the final delegate count eight to six. The caucus finally ended at a bit past 9:00PM—everyone there, especially the embattled precinct chair, was exhausted. The caucus process may be antiquated, frustrating, and overly complicated, but one thing was clear by the end of the night: it’s one of the greatest spectacles in American politics. Michael Pelle is a Trinity senior from Miami, FL majoring in Public Policy and Political Science. He is the co-editor-in-chief of DPR.

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

DPR DISPATCHES

Inside the Caucus Room: Des Moines Precinct 41 By Michael Pelle - February, 4 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

COMMENTARY

Commentary Highlights from dukepoliticalreview.org

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

heavily on her experience as Secretary of State, yet her inconsistent tenure and inconclusive positions make it difficult to discern how a Clinton presidency would address the crisis in Syria and Iraq. Mac Findlay is a Trinity senior from Chicago, IL majoring in economics and history. He is a columnist for DPR, and has volunteered for the Jeb! campaign.

By Nate Sizemore - February, 16 2016

By Mac Findlay - February, 4 2016

President Obama and advocated for a no-fly zone over Syria, the increased deployment of special forces, and increased air strikes—a plan that matches that of many Republican candidates. A no-fly zone, especially in the context of Russian air strikes, would be a bold but effective next step against the Assad regime to protect the Syrian people and allow for the establishment of Syrian refugee camps within the country. While protecting the Syrian people and putting continued pressure on Assad, something important to Middle Eastern allies like Turkey, the move would fall short of directly removing Assad and creating an even greater vacuum for ISIS like that created in Libya. During the campaign, Clinton has advocated for cooperation with the Russians in fighting the Islamic State in Syria. This is despite the United States’s official stance against Bashar al-Assad and the red line on chemical weapons the administration drew in August 2012 that was violated shortly after. Clinton’s State Department did not

targeted ISIS. Other reports show Russian air strikes even hit U.S.-supported rebel groups. There is little evidence Russia is serious about fighting ISIS beyond the extent to which it protects their and the Assad regime’s interests. Clinton seems weak when it comes to geopolitical adversaries like Russia, trigger happy when it came to Libya, and strong when confronting terrorism when compared to her fellow Democrats. Clinton’s campaign has relied

Yemen’s Turmoil and its Broader Implications

Hillary Clinton: Hawk or Dove? illary Clinton is considered a hawk in the Democratic field, yet her time as Secretary of State is characterized by somewhat dovish policies including the failed reset with Russia, the removal of troops from Iraq and the rise of ISIS, and the opening of talks with Iran. At the same time, Hillary was a strong advocate of NATO involvement in Libya and the U.S. raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. Though the latter was a definitive success, the former created a power vacuum that has allowed al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups to take root. During the presidential campaign, her foreign policy positions have been somewhat vague, but she has distanced herself from Obama on recent foreign policy conflicts and taken more aggressive stances than her rival Bernie Sanders. The question is, which Clinton would characterize a Clinton presidency, and which Clinton would be better? Clinton has sided with President Obama in declining the potential use of ground forces. She also has been associated with and blamed for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which was permitted by the administration’s decision to remove troops from Iraq by 2011 based on the previous administration’s Status of Forces Agreement. At the same time, she has gone beyond

Recent history calls Clinton’s continued desire to cooperate with Russia into question, especially when it comes to Syria. Russia showed no respect for the United States’ wishes with regards to Iran and Ukraine, and their involvement in Syria effectively constitutes a proxy war against the United States’s efforts in Syria. Russia has not proven to be effective against ISIS and a State Department report showed that 90% of Russian airstrikes in Syria have not

take action against Assad beyond arming and training moderate rebel forces even after the violation of the red line. Beginning in September, Russia has engaged in airstrikes and has reportedly sent grounds troops to help Iran prop up Assad. This is not the first time Clinton has attempted to cooperate with Russia under precarious circumstances. In 2009, Clinton led U.S. efforts to “reset” relations with Russia, only to be rebuffed by the Russian sale of UNbanned arms to Iran and the invasion of Crimea and southeastern Ukraine.

hen Houthi rebels seized the Yemeni capital of Sanaa in September 2015, many pundits in the international press simply saw a country long plagued by sectarian violence, terrorism, and political unrest falling into yet another cycle of volatility. As the international community looked towards the escalating civil war in Syria and the rise of ISIL with increasing dread, such crude assessments of the situation in Yemen remained sufficient for the majority of the world. Meanwhile, for regional powerhouses jockeying for hegemony in the Middle East, Yemen’s civil war offered yet another opportunity to flex their respective political and military muscles. At first glance, it is easy to explain the conflict in Yemen as a purely religious one. Like Iraq, Yemen is a predominantly Sunni nation with a sizable Shia minority concentrated in the northern mountainous plains of the Saada province. When Houthi rebels triumphantly stormed into Sanaa and forced then President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi into exile last January, many were quick to highlight the sectarian nature of the conflict. Adherents of a relatively unknown branch of Shia Islam known as Zaidism, Houthi separatists had previously risen against Yemen’s central ruling state and its Saudi-backed government in the 1990s. Despite the clear religious divide be-

tween the rebels and government, Yemen’s conflict-ridden past has stemmed more from tribalism, geographic sectionalism, and political differences than pure religious hate. In fact, some argue that sectarian violence has only emerged in recent years as Saudi Arabia and Iran have grappled for political sway in the country. Like many other conflicts in the Middle East today, the current conflict in Yemen can be traced back to the country’s unsuccessful political transition during the Arab Spring in 2011 when Yemeni strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh was forced out of the presidency. Saleh, who ruled Yemen as its sole dictator for over thirty years, is notorious for simultaneously catering to U.S. and Saudi foreign policy demands in exchange for military and financial aid while quietly permitting the buildup of Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP). Initial hope that Yemen’s government could keep its fragile federation of states together quickly deteriorated as the government failed to follow an U.N.-brokered transitional plan and Houthi rebels resumed fighting. With the Houthis positioning themselves as a welcome alternative to an inept and corrupt bureaucracy, they quickly captured large swaths of northern Yemen. Pushed out of office but still active in Yemen’s political community, ex-president Saleh saw the resurgence of the Houthis as an op-

portunity to align himself and his loyalist government fighters with a powerful rebel group in a ploy to take back the country. The Houthis, empowered by their alliance with Saleh, rapidly expanded their control of the country, capturing strategically important ports like Taiz and Aden over the course of a few short months. For decades, Saudi Arabia has in one way or another been involved in Yemeni politics as the world’s most powerful Sunni nation and Yemen’s northern neighbor. Threatened by the image of victorious Shiite rebels in their backyard, Saudi Arabia quickly mobilized a coalition of Arab and African allies last March to end the Houthi insurgency. The Saudi’s intervention in Yemen proved to be a turning point in the conflict. By September, coalition ground forces had recaptured nearly 80 percent of the country with the help of a massive Saudi bombing campaign. Despite these initial successes, coalition fighters have encountered tough resistance from resolute Houthi forces who have the advantage of battlefield experience and are familiar with the rugged terrain. Furthermore, Riyadh’s indiscriminate airstrikes and use of cluster bombs have drawn criticism from the international community as civilian casualties climb to almost 3,000 deaths with countless others injured. From Riyadh’s perspective, the

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

COMMENTARY

Commentary Highlights from dukepoliticalreview.org

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

By Nate Sizemore - February, 16 2016

By Mac Findlay - February, 4 2016

Yemen’s Turmoil and its Broader Implications

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

COMMENTARY

Houthis are simply a proxy Shia force under Tehran’s ever-expanding influence. While the exact extent of Iran’s military aid is impossible to confirm publicly, the State Department’s acknowledgment of Iranian military supplies in Yemen and Tehran’s clear financial backing of the Houthis soundly demonstrate the Ayatollah’s desire to challenge Sunni control of the country. Though Saudi Arabia has always commanded a powerful presence in the Middle East as the leader of the Sunni world, the Kingdom recently has adopted a hawkish foreign policy strategy as it seeks to curb Iran’s resurgence after the signing of the nuclear deal. Since the deal, Saudi Arabia has feared that an antagonistic Iran, bolstered by a stronger economy and improved international relations (Tehran and Moscow have worked closely with one another

in Syria, and Russian corporations are already looking to pour billions into Iran’s crumbling infrastructure), will encircle the Kingdom as it spreads its influence across the Arab world. There is little hope that Yemen’s civil war will end any time soon. Riyadh has already expressed its determination to stay in Yemen until order is restored, which could take anywhere from months to years as Houthi fighters hunker down for a prolonged fight. If Saudi leaders are looking to “project power and military strength” in the region, they certainly want to avoid a premature retreat from Yemen, which would be spun as a victory for Tehran. Continued fighting between coalition forces and Houthis will only worsen an already dire humanitarian situation. The country is reportedly on the edge of famine and the U.N. has declared

Yemen a “category three crisis—on par with Syria, Iraq, and South Sudan.” To make matters worse, Yemen’s descent into chaos has allowed a diminished AQAP to seize control of Al Mukalla and Zinjibar, two important cities to the south, while ISIL has claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks in the region as it also looks to capitalize on the country’s tumult. The United States and Europe must pressure both sides to a ceasefire in hopes of temporarily improving the situation on the ground until a more concrete solution can be devised, lest the world sit back and watch yet another Middle Eastern nation completely collapse. Nate Sizemore is a Trinity junior from Greenwich, CT majoring in public policy. He is a columnist for DPR.

President Obama’s Oil Tax Fantasy By Allen Jones - February, 24 2016

ast week, congressional Republicans made an unprecedented move by rejecting outright President Obama’s proposed $4.1 trillion fiscal 2017 budget, even before granting the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) its customary hearings. Though arguably a breach of decorum under normal circumstances, in this case it amounts to an entirely reasonable response to an unreasonable, politically impossible, and simply out-of-touch proposal that encapsulates the president’s clear disdain for the realities of the American economy. The cornerstone of the budget is a plan to create what the White House calls “a climate-smart economy” by levying a tax of $10.25 on every barrel of oil and investing the massive windfall on green energy and “new technologies such as autonomous vehicles and high-speed rail.” Politically speaking, putting forward new taxes on domestic energy presents significant risk since, along with Social Security and Medicare, the national gasoline tax

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

has long been regarded as an untouchable third rail of federal politics. The tax, which is not indexed to inflation, was last adjusted in 1993 when it was raised to 18.4 cents per gallon. However, the president believes his barrel tax represents a more palatable alternative to increasing the gas tax, particularly in the way it can be pitched to voters this election year. The political rationale behind applying a per-barrel oil tax rather than raising the gasoline tax is simple: Democrats can frame the tax as a fair obligation for an industry loathed by many on the left rather than a burden for average citizens, despite the inevitability that consumers would be forced to shoulder the brunt of the cost. Indeed, President Obama insists the fee would be “paid by oil companies” even while his own director of the White House National Economic Council, Jeffrey Zients, admits the industry “will likely pass on some of these costs” to consumers. According to most analysts, President Obama’s proposal would more than dou-

SPRING 2016

ble the impact of the federal gasoline tax, upping the price of a gallon of gas by approximately 25 cents. The White House believes that current low oil prices, down almost 75 percent since 2014, present the ideal opportunity to impose this tax while minimizing economic impact and political fallout. Such a belief demonstrates either complete delusion or a profound lack of understanding of the state of the U.S. economy. Historically, falling oil prices have reliably spurred economic growth, encouraging consumer spending by lowering the price of energy and goods. Though oil producers suffered, the negative effects were felt mostly overseas since the U.S., until recently, was a net energy importer. Now, conversely, we import only 27 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products we consume—the lowest proportion since 1985—due to the recent boom in domestic oil and natural gas. This year, domestic producers, struggling to compete as OPEC floods the market with cheap oil, have drastically reduced new

investment and laid off workers. As the OECD’s International Energy Agency stated, “unless something changes, the oil market could drown in oversupply.” Adding to the problem, any substantial increase in consumer spending has so far failed to materialize. Although Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen recently estimated that current gas prices save the average household roughly $1,000 annually, chronic underemployment, high levels of debt, and low economic confidence mean this windfall is being saved instead of spent. According to Gallup, 58 percent of Americans believe the economy is getting worse. Additionally, an increasingly trepidatious Yellen cautioned last week in her semiannual report to Congress that foreign economic trouble and market volatility are driving down growth. Some economists are even whispering that a recession might be imminent. A crippled U.S. energy industry greatly exacerbates these underlying financial concerns. JPMorgan Chase estimates that rock-bottom oil prices actually reduced economic growth by 0.3 percent in 2015. This year’s forecast hardly looks better as JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs both predict the net effect on the rate of growth will be “around zero.” Ultimately, it’s clear that forcing consumers and oil companies to swallow an extra $10.25 per barrel in the current economic climate would shrink consumer spending and require energy firms to slash their capital outlays. These factors could be enough to put us on the path to recession and risk the collapse of much of the American energy sector. Despite the economic damage, there are many who argue that taxing oil constitutes a tough yet necessary prescrip-

tion to reduce carbon emissions. They theorize that any increase in gas prices will lessen consumption and help wean America off of dirty energy. Of course, America should take action against climate change by finding innovative solutions to diminish our dependence on fossil fuels. However, increasing the price of oil as outlined in the president’s plan would not affect demand and would merely reduce consumer spending and savings. Economic analysis reveals that consumer spending on energy is mostly inelastic as long as the price of oil is below $75 per barrel. In other words, at the current market price of around $29 per barrel, the president’s tax would not be effective in discouraging fossil fuel consumption. In fact, it would merely act as a regressive tax hike and disproportionately raise the cost of living for millions of middle- and lower-class Americans in a period of stagnant wages and disappointing economic growth. According to studies cited by The Wall Street Journal, energy costs account for more than 25 percent of after-tax income for households that earn less than $30,000. That figure is reduced to 10 percent for families with annual incomes of greater than $50,000, meaning that President Obama’s proposal would exacerbate economic inequality. In an election year when Bernie Sanders has electrified progressives by promising to shrink the wealth gap, proposing this regressive tax puts many Democrats in an awkward position. So far, congressional Democrats have largely remained silent while their presidential candidates also attempt to avoid the issue, fearing alienating blue-collar workers if they embrace the proposal or environmentalists if they criticize it. Though the White House pledges that any lost income among working Americans would be made up through transfer payments, there is no chance that the federal government could afford it. Its economic and political infeasibility notwithstanding, perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the president’s proposal is that it fails to offer a coherent solution for fixing our crumbling infrastructure—an issue that both parties

agree is vitally important. Though the White House plan would likely raise $32 billion annually and increase spending on surface transportation by 50 percent, only a pittance would be directed toward repairing dangerous bridges, deteriorating highways, and unsafe drinking water systems. For context, the American Society of Civil Engineers calculates that $3.6 trillion would be required by 2020 to repair our existing infrastructure. The vast majority of funding in the plan, as the president states, would be spent to “accelerate the integration of autonomous vehicles, low-carbon technologies and intelligent transportation systems into our infrastructure.” Much of this money would go to high-speed rail, a financial black hole that has already devoured almost $11 billion with nearly nothing to show for it since President Obama declared it a national priority in 2009. Furthermore, consider the administration’s lousy track record in investing in green technology. The fallout from the collapse of the solar company Solyndra revealed that federal grants were repeatedly awarded based on potential political gain rather than economic or technological merit. As even one of Solyndra’s own board members admitted, the Obama “[Department of Energy] really thinks politically before it thinks economically.” The good news is that this budget proposal is politically dead in the water. The bad news, however, is that this document reveals the extent of the Democrats’ long-term climate agenda—one that has transitioned away from encouraging renewables and capping carbon emissions to a new tactic designed to limit the production and consumption of domestic oil and gas at all costs. With gasoline prices at a low point during this election cycle, energy policy discussions have been noticeably absent from campaign coverage and the debate stage. Now that the stakes are clear, let’s hope that changes. Allen Jones is a Trinity junior from Atlanta, GA majoring in Public Policy Studies and minoring in History and German. He is a contributing editor for DPR.

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

COMMENTARY

President Obama’s Oil Tax Fantasy By Allen Jones - February, 24 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

Drought, Syria, and ISIS A New Framework for Thinking About Climate Change and Security By Henry Miller

Syrian children fill up containers of drinking water at a refugee camp in Jordan. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Drought, Syria, and ISIS A New Framework for Thinking About Climate Change and Security By Henry Miller

Syrian children fill up containers of drinking water at a refugee camp in Jordan. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

IN-DEPTH

n October 2003, the Department of Defense released a report on the national security implications of climate change. The United States’s armed forces had invaded Iraq several months earlier before and had been in Afghanistan for two years. From today’s vantage point, this report was particularly prescient, predicting that large numbers of refugees would place a strain on Europe, and that climate-based “disruption and conflict” would become international norms. But the report, titled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” went largely unnoticed. Almost a decade later, on March 9, 2013, former Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, then commander of the U.S. naval forces in the Pacific, identified climate change as one of the biggest long-term security threats in the Pacific. Locklear stated that climate change, “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen… that

will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.” As a high-ranking military official, Admiral Locklear’s comments gave credibility to the notion of climate change as a national security threat. Until then, the idea had largely been confined to academia, think-tanks, and occasional Democratic talking points. At one of the Democratic presidential debates last October, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was asked about national security and responded that climate change is the greatest national security threat facing the United States today. A couple months later at the international climate talks that came on the heels of the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, President Obama rebuked Republicans saying, “The American Republican party is the only major party I can think of in the advanced world that effectively denies climate change. It’s an outlier.” Sanders’s statements brought much criticism from Republican politicians

who wondered how climate change could be a bigger security threat than terrorism in the Middle East. Republican politicians similarly decried Obama’s focus on climate change instead of combatting ISIS in the wake of the terrorist group’s attack on Paris. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz told voters in Iowa that Obama “apparently thinks having an SUV in your driveway is more dangerous than a bunch of terrorists trying to blow up the world.” The Republican reaction to Sanders’s and Obama’s comments offer insight into the way most people view the idea of climate change as a national security threat. For many people, this conjures up images of superstorms destroying entire cities like those from the film The Day After Tomorrow. The fictional movie depicts catastrophic weather events related to climate change and melting polar ice caps that cause mass destruction across the world. New York City is even completely destroyed and becomes a frozen wasteland as a result of a freak storm. In reality, Sanders, Obama, and others who have espoused the notion of climate change as a security threat are not wrong, but their language is simply too ambiguous. Significant research and evidence supports the assertion that anthropogenic climate change is linked to national security threats, including that posed by ISIS.

Drought and Agriculture in the Levant

This map shows the territorial claims of ISIS as of Oct. 21, 2015. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Back in 2009, before the Arab Spring, the ensuing Civil War, and the cancerous growth of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), one half of all Syrians made their living from agriculture. Agriculture accounted for about 20 percent of Syria’s gross domestic product, but like most developing nations, it was heavily reliant on rainfall. Roughly two-thirds of the land in Syria used for agricultural purposes is

dependent on rainfall as opposed to man-made irrigation systems found in developed nations like the U.S. Notably, from 1998 to 2012, Syria, Iraq, and parts of Turkey experienced the tail end of what was likely the driest fifteen-year period that the region had faced in the last 900 years according to a recent NASA study. And within this fifteen-year period there was an exceptionally severe drought in Syria from 2006 to 2011. As a result, agricultural production in the country decreased by about one third according to UC Santa Barbara researcher Colin Kelley. Both the NASA study and Kelley’s work suggest that dry conditions and droughts of this magnitude are not outside the scope of natural fluctuations. They are, however, quite exceptional relative to the natural variability in the region’s climate. Sophisticated climate prediction models that incorporate the effects from anthropogenic activities, on the other hand, align with the results that scientists have seen in the eastern Mediterranean region. Thus, it is very likely that climate change brought on by human activity has contributed to the extreme droughts in Syria and has initiated much of the economic and social upheaval in the region.

Migration, Civil War, and Terror

In the wake of exceptionally dry

years and droughts that caused agricultural failings, many Syrians were forced to move to urban areas in search of new opportunities. Some estimates place the number of internal Syrian migrants (before the onset of the Syrian Civil War) at 1.5 million. The massive influx of migrants from rural areas placed a heavy strain on cities already burdened with large numbers of refugees from neighboring Iraq after almost a decade of war. Already fueled by pre-existing destabilization and strife, Syrians

created by the departure of American forces permitted terrorist networks with ties to al-Qaeda to reemerge and resume their activities. The al-Qaeda branch operating in the region eventually declared itself the Islamic State and later a caliphate. With no state monopoly of power or mechanism for prevention of violence in many areas on the Iraqi-Syrian border, ISIS was allowed to operate almost unchecked. The terrorist organization capitalized on Syria’s crumbling economy, disaffected migrants, and long-standing sectarian divisions between Sunnis and Shi’a to gain strength. The Sunni-Shi’a rift and other aspects of Islam that played a role in the creation of ISIS have existed for hundreds of years. That being said, a n t h r o p o ge n i c climate change also appears to have played a significant role in fomenting the terrorist organization’s growth and success. President Obama and French President Hollande visit The impacts of a memorial for the victims of the terrorist attack at climate change the Bataclan. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. described in the annual United Nations Intergovernmental saw the budding Arab Spring in Panel on Climate Change report have Egypt and Tunisia as an opportunity now come to life in Syria. Climate to oust the authoritarian Assad change led to drought which disregime. Protests started in the city of placed millions, crippled an econoDar’a in March 2011, and by the end my, and created a failed state. One of April the state had responded with does not have to make much of an what effectively became a siege of the intellectual leap to see how climate city. change has contributed to the growth As Syrian protesters clashed with of the national security threat that government forces, becoming violent has become ISIS. to the point of war, other dormant Since ISIS’s emergence the destabilizing forces came into focus. terrorist organization has committed The United States had fully with- innumerable atrocities and inspired drawn its troops from Iraq by the end terrorist attacks in Europe and the of December of 2011. The vacuum United States. ISIS’s activities and SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

Drought and Agriculture in the Levant

This map shows the territorial claims of ISIS as of Oct. 21, 2015. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Migration, Civil War, and Terror

In the wake of exceptionally dry

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

influence have complicated the refugee crisis in western nations. Europe and the United States have scrambled to assess refugees’ security threat potential after attacks in Paris, Brussels, and San Bernardino.

Time for a Paradigm Shift

Syria provides a striking example of how climate change relates to national security. In a state like Syria where traditional agriculture is confronted by crippling drought and institutions are insufficient to accommodate internal migration on that scale, the outcome is obvious. Mass internal migration strains the ability of the government to provide services to its citizens (although one could easily argue that the Assad regime was not all that concerned with providing adequate social services to its citizens in the first place). Citizens easily become disenchanted with governments, and the resulting failed state provides a breeding ground for extremists. In the United States we have even seen similar scenarios, albeit with much tamer outcomes. Houston, for example, was one of the cities that took in the most evacuees after Hurricane Katrina decimated New Orleans. Large numbers of evacuees placed tremendous stress on the city and its ability to provide public services. Houston saw a sharp increase in homicides and needed money from the federal government to pay for more police officers. People can dispute man-made

climate change’s impact on hurricane patterns, and we clearly did not see a terrorist organization materialize out of the situation in Houston, but it provides another glimpse into how natural disasters disrupt society. Social upheaval on this scale usually leads to undesirable but manageable outcomes in the first world, but in developing nations like Syria, the outcome can be much more treacherous. There are many more fragile,

scientists, already begun to disrupt climate patterns. One U.N. report on climate change discussed its ability to cause displacement and poverty which inevitably leads to conflict and humanitarian crises. All it takes is one natural disaster or erratic climate disruption to end in a failed state. The destabilization of fragile regions is climate change’s biggest mechanism to multiply security threats. The bottom line is heartbreaking and senseless violence that spans the globe. The deterioration of the Syrian state was no doubt spurred on by the effects of climate change. The resulting turmoil provided the fertile ground necessary for ISIS extremists to flourish and operate unhindered. In just the last year, both the United States and Europe have been rocked by ISIS-inspired attacks at home. The theoretical models and impacts presented in climate change reports and memos have already become a reality, and the time for unsophisticated talking points and sound bites is over. Climate change itself will magnify pre-existing national security threats across the globe, and addressing these challenges will require significant investment and persistent effort from world leaders.

Social upheaval on this scale leads to undesirable but manageable outcomes in the first world, but in developing nations like Syria, the outcome is much more treacherous.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

developing states across the world that are highly susceptible to succumbing to the same fate as Syria. Boko Haram’s success in recruiting new members can be partially attributed to the drying up of Lake Chad, which provided the necessary water and irrigation for many traditional subsistence farmers in Niger, Chad, and Nigeria. That region of central Africa is now the heart of territory belonging to Boko Haram, which has pledged its allegiance to ISIS. It is necessary to note here that correlation of events such as these does not necessarily imply causation, but reasonable minds can follow the spillover effects of one event to the next. Human activities over the last two centuries have, according to most

SPRING 2016

Henry Miller is a Trinity senior studying Public Policy. He is an Associate Editor of DPR’s 60 Seconds.

Open Innovation and Democracy in the Crowd By Jay Sullivan

IN-DEPTH

Time for a Paradigm Shift

Social upheaval on this scale leads to undesirable but manageable outcomes in the first world, but in developing nations like Syria, the outcome is much more treacherous.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Henry Miller is a Trinity senior studying Public Policy. He is an Associate Editor of DPR’s 60 Seconds.

Open Innovation and Democracy in the Crowd By Jay Sullivan

IN-DEPTH

he halls of the annual South by Southwest Music, Film, and Interactive Festival (SXSW) in Austin, Texas are lined with the next trends in media and marketing, the people at the forefront of the entertainment and technology industries, and the minds—from Star Wars Director JJ Abrams to NBA Commissioner Adam Silver—behind everything and anything pop culture. It’s a haven for all things new, dynamic, and exciting, hardly the kind of place one would expect to see a phalanx of Secret Service officers ushering in the President for his keynote address. Governments, especially the federal government of the United States, are notorious for being technophobic, backwards, and, above all, slow. Congressional gridlock means that stereotype continues to hold true in most regards, but, for perhaps the first time in a generation, the US government is actually on the forefront of a pop culture movement. President Obama, the first sitting Commander in Chief to attend and speak at SXSW, is the face of the “open innovation” movement, a dynamic approach to global problem-solving that is hardly out of place in a room of techies, innovators, and change-makers. Instead of using his SXSW platform to pitch the next big government program, President Obama had a different motive: “The reason I’m here really is to recruit all of you.” The President, seeking to cement a legacy of modernizing a government for the digital age, made his pitch to invest in open innovation and build

the crowd of citizens committed to addressing the tough problems that governments and societies face. Despite little recognition in the press, the Obama administration has been on the forefront of pioneering the future of open innovation since 2009. This government-wide effort carries with it not only the promise of economic and social value, but also a dynamic approach to democratic governance and civic engagement in social problem-solving.

Open Innovation and Federal Government

the

In the twentieth century, innovation was driven by large corporations and universities that invested heavily in internal research and development to pioneer new

has shrunk the gap of knowledge, resources, and capacity between the experts and the amateurs. We live in a world where a student with access to a few resources—a laptop and a 3-D printer—can design, build, and prototype the next innovation in biomedical engineering. Professor Henry Chesbrough defined the accepted private sector conception of open innovation as a two-way street for firms, namely bottom-up (or outside-in) approaches to sourcing ideas and decentralized development of private innovation (or inside-out). The premise is that the firm can both identify a promising idea from anywhere and open any internally developed concept to the world to further develop. Innovation, then, is inclusive, collaborative, and crowd-sourced. Open innovation is the child of two needs—more inclusive progress towards solving the most pressing problems society faces and a revitalized model of civic engagement that facilitates civic participation throughout the democratic process. The standard process involves three major steps: the sourcing or identification of a promising idea to solve a demonstrated problem, the development of that idea into a prototype innovation, and the scaling of that innovation to maximize social and economic impact. This strategy of innovation has rapidly become a popular tool for the federal government and its agencies to systematically identify and develop the ideas that have the potential for transformative impact, including eliminating homelessness, improving health systems in the

We live in a world where a student with access to a few resources—a laptop and a 3-D printer— can design, build, and prototype the next innovation in biomedical engineering.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

products or services. Such directed innovation systematized research and development partnerships between institutes, governments, universities, and corporations in order to create many of the technologies that power modern day life—from the development of the Internet to the technology behind space travel. However, the rise of the Internet age

SPRING 2016

developing world, feeding a growing global population, or building the next landmark green energy source. What makes open innovation unique is that it is inherently participatory. It succeeds best when everyone from a teenager with a big idea to cleanup the oceans to a veteran researcher with decades of groundwork at a national lab come together. Governments are uniquely positioned to employ open innovation. They can bridge sectors to collaborate, build the crowd of citizens, and combine the necessary resources with a rolodex of global challenges to solve the problems they often face alone. Beyond the impact of revolutionary innovations themselves in transforming industries and services, the process of open innovation offers a more promising emergence, that of a new model for democratic and participatory governance. Much like any new process, open innovation is certainly not without flaws, most important of which is the political calculus of its use by governments. However great the potential benefits to democratic participation, as a political strategy, open innovation is hard to sell within a political process that has been so eroded by years of inaction, distrust, incompetence, and apparent waste of government funds. While positive examples have begun to grow of open innovation’s promise in action, the viability of its political life in a toxic, partisan divide remains uncertain.

Saving Lives at Birth, Space Travel and Civic Hackathons

Open innovation features prominently in the President’s updated Strategy for American Innovation, which was first articulated in 2009 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Economic Council. Framed as “Empowering a Nation of Innovators,” these goals focus on building the incentive prize or challenge as a “standard tool in every agency’s toolbox” and “tapping the talents of innovators through mak-

ing, crowdsourcing, and citizen science” to utilize the full capacity of citizens to address real-world problems. When it comes to the use of open innovation in government, the purpose is simply to incentivize, identify, and develop solutions to pressing problems through any participatory means necessary—and to grow the markets that support such innovations. At its core, open innovation is about using the resources of the federal government to source, develop, and accelerate the most promising ideas to address The Pratt Pouch, a ketchup-like packet that extends the priorities and the shelf life of antiretroviral drugs used to prevent the challenges the natransmission of HIV from mother to child, was a finalist tion and the world for USAID’s Grand Challenge Saving Lives at Birth in face. Since 2009, 2013 and has since gone to market. the federal government has done just that, launching massive prize competitions, debeen USAID’s Grand Challenges for veloping agency-specific innovation Development, which has launched labs, and pioneering novel programs seven Grand Challenges in the fields to incubate and scale startups and of global health, food, education, solutions around the world. politics, and wildlife trafficking in The first step in the process of collaboration with other agencies open innovation in the public sector and organizations. The aims of a is the sourcing and identification program like USAID’s effort are of promising ideas or innovations. to remove traditional barriers to The primary methods in the vein progress in the field and facilitate of bottom-up approaches are the implementation and growth of competitions, challenges, and prizes. promising solutions particularly in In 2010, the federal government science and technology. debuted Challenge.gov, a platform In providing opportunities for that has run over 460 challenges for citizens to participate in the process nearly 80 agencies with more than of solving problems the federal $220 million in prize money awarded government and the world face, since its launch. A major landmark agencies like USAID are debuting of the challenge movement has a model for open innovation SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

Open Innovation and Federal Government

the

In the twentieth century, innovation was driven by large corporations and universities that invested heavily in internal research and development to pioneer new

We live in a world where a student with access to a few resources—a laptop and a 3-D printer— can design, build, and prototype the next innovation in biomedical engineering.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Saving Lives at Birth, Space Travel and Civic Hackathons

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

competition as a viable approach. Similarly, NASA, the White House, and other agencies have begun to pioneer the art of mass collaboration to instigate the creation and further development of promising ideas. Hackathons, co-design sessions, and the maker movement, all of which encompass a gathering of a diverse group of individuals, work to develop prototype solutions to specific problems and rethink traditional barriers to devise creative systems that address broader challenges. NASA’s International Space Apps Challenge is the world’s largest global hackathon, with more than 12,500 participants from around the world working directly with NASA to design solutions to challenges in data visualization, software development, and citizen science. A similar program, the National Day of Civic Hacking, gathers diverse groups of citizens around the country to create services, apps, and websites that improve their communities and the governments that serve them. Programs like these have become the hallmark of both pushing for impactful innovations that achieve policy goals while engaging a broad crowd of citizens in democratic governance. Once ideas or innovations have been identified and developed as functional prototypes, the final crucial step is scaling of both impact and reach into a broader geographic range. Agency Innovation Labs that support, coordinate, and encourage innovation have begun to promote a culture of rapid progress and actively develop programs, resources, and services necessary to accelerate solutions to scale across governments and communities. Some agencies, such as USAID’s Global Development Lab, have created incubators that provide the necessary resources, human capital, and expertise to accelerate impact quickly, cheaply, and more sustainably. Established in 2014, the Global Development Lab

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

oversees a variety of programs and partnerships with universities, foreign governments, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. One particularly fruitful program, known as LAUNCH, has worked to identify and support solutions that will transform the system of materials and manufacturing driving over $40 million of indirect investment through a partnership between USAID, Nike, NASA, and the US State Department. Programs like LAUNCH exhibit the capacity for government open innovation programs not only to identify ideas and engage the masses in their development, but also to increase the quality and speed of innovation. While these examples are only initial steps toward the implementation of open innovation as a staple of public policy, they illustrate the potential of crowdsourcing and collaborative action as tools for policy makers to drive rapid, efficient innovation.

“The Next Cool Thing”

Policy goals often cannot be achieved without the participation of citizens. Open innovation has begun to prove itself an effective tool in civic engagement that can serve as the intermediary between policy development and democratic governance, a model for creating the innovations that will drive society’s future and bring citizens along as drivers of that future. Much like any other investments the government or private firms undertake, innovation involves a certain degree of risk and uncertainty. However, it also involves the most politically toxic concept known to American politics: failure—and lots of it. Iteration, testing, failing fast, learning, and constantly improving are hallmarks of successful startups and innovation social impact organizations. They are also among the list of things that make a oneterm politician. A political system built to operate deliberately and mechanically

SPRING 2016

would seem at odds with such a rapid, flexible approach, as does one that shuns systematic failure and relies on a measured trust in government. This inherent nature of federal politics is why cities have become the labs for public sector innovation, as their smaller scale and increased flexibility to respond to changes and failures can facilitate the process of innovation far more readily than a federal program. Open innovation offers a different rhetoric and modus operandi for government, one that rethinks the assumptions imbued in our public policy and does not align with the progression of policy-making that highlights slight modification over systemic change. A model of democratic governance, participation, and modernization that fits the 21st century, open innovation promises to engage the citizen in the development of the society at all levels in more ways than the ballot box. Open innovation has become an integral part of the federal government’s efforts to encourage, support, and sustain innovation and bridge the gap between policy and civic participation in solving complex problems. Building democratic engagement and encouraging sustainable innovation are lofty goals. Only time will tell if the American political system can commit the human and financial capital needed to move from open innovation as “the next cool thing” to tangible, sustainable social impact. Jay Sullivan is a Trinity senior studying Public Policy and Innovation & Entrepreneurship. He is an Interviews Associate Editor for DPR.

China’s New Nationalism Xi Jinping’s Search for Legitimacy

Why Nationalism? Why Now?

ince 1978, when Deng Xiaoping introduced market reforms, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has staked its legitimacy on an implicit bargain with the Chinese people: you stay quiet while we make us all richer. This shift to technocratic legitimacy marked a welcome change from Mao Zedong’s revolutionary authority, or the all-justifying “Mandate of Heaven” that legitimized imperial rule for millennia. Now, as Chinese growth slows, the CCP can no longer rely on it for legitimacy. Just as Deng led the transition from Mao’s revolutionary legitimacy to technocratic legitimacy staked on delivering economic growth,

By Matthew King

so too must President Xi Jinping manage the next transition. Xi must provide a compelling answer to this question: Absent its ability to deliver sustained economic growth, why would the Chinese people continue to support the CCP? Xi’s answer? Nationalism

Of Nationalism and Legitimacy

Nationalism has always been one source of the CCP’s legitimacy. Mao cast his participation in the “Long March” as a heroic patriotic struggle to liberate China from Japanese imperialism. Following his triumph in the Chinese Civil War, Mao embraced a legendary SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

“The Next Cool Thing”

SPRING 2016

China’s New Nationalism Xi Jinping’s Search for Legitimacy

Why Nationalism? Why Now?

By Matthew King

Of Nationalism and Legitimacy

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

cult of personality and embarked on grand campaigns with equally grandiose slogans—think “Great Leap Forward” and “Down to the Countryside”—all to expand and legitimize his rule. The technocrats who succeeded Mao maintained some of the nationalist posturing, but ultimately relied on an implicit bargain for legitimacy: they would deliver growth and the people would not question their right to rule. The average Chinese citizen would not worry about affairs of state so long as the ruling party could deliver consistently rising incomes. Modernization theory predicts that as a country moves from poverty to prosperity, it will be more likely to undergo democratization. It is easy for democracies to maintain legitimacy through regular, free elections. Elections provide enduring legitimacy by honoring the principle of “consent of the governed”; even if a particular elected government is corrupt or incompetent, voters can replace it at the next election. Under Xi, however, it is a truth universally unacknowledged that a single China in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a democracy. The CCP recently enumerated “Western constitutional democracy” as one of the top threats to stability. Clearly, American-style democracy is not in the cards for China anytime soon.

on the one hand, economic growth as a source of regime legitimacy, and, on the other hand, the typical avenue for countries at this stage of development—democratization (à la South Korea or Taiwan)—which is a nonstarter for the CCP. That leaves nationalism as a single-party regime’s best hope for maintaining public support. To pull this off, the CCP must inextricably link together the fortunes of the party and the nation; loyalty to

economic bargain. From 1999 to 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered on his promise to generate rising incomes; he also employed the country’s vast mineral wealth to pay off the national debt, institute a flat tax, and reduce poverty. After Russia’s economic fortunes soured in the late-2000s recession, Putin’s successor Dmitry Medvedev signalled the switch to nationalist posturing. On a 2010 visit to the remote Kuril Islands, a disputed island chain administered by Russia but partially c l a i m e d by Japan, M e d v e d e v tweeted, “How many beautiful places there are in Russia!” It was a harbinger of nationalist rhetoric to come. Russia’s 2014 military intervention in Ukraine also stems from nationalism. “Putin’s actions in Ukraine are best understood through the lens of his domestic political considerations,” political scientist Henry Hale writes in The Guardian. After the 2011 anti-Putin protests threatened the regime, Putin was looking for means to secure widespread public support under the banner of nationalism. Putin also unveiled new media restrictions and continued to construct a “macho” cult of personality during the Ukraine crisis. Putin’s approval rating has remained around its current 83 percent since the annexation of Crimea, longer than a typical “rally ‘round the flag” effect. Rest assured, China’s leadership is watching, and will emulate the

The CCP is, in effect, moving the goalposts. Economic growth will no longer serve as as the supreme metric of ‘job performance.’

The CCP’s Dilemma

Herein lies the dilemma: China is growing too slowly to rely on,

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

the nation means obeying the party, and vice versa. The CCP is, in effect, moving the goalposts. Economic growth will no longer serve as as the supreme metric of “job performance.” Instead, serving and defending the Chinese nation will become the party’s paramount objective.

Inspiration from a Neighbor

Just as China looked to Singapore as an inspiration for market reforms under authoritarian rule, China may profit from the example of a neighboring country—Russia— in this nationalist transition. Both Russian and Chinese leaders have relied on the same implicit

SPRING 2016

most successful policies in Russia’s nationalist resurgence.

Stoking Nationalist Sentiment Expanding Media Control

The Marquis de Condorcet once asked, “Is it not the press that has freed... the people from every political and religious chain?” Frederick Douglass traced the origins of his yearning for freedom to his learning to read: “The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers… Freedom now appeared, to disappear no more forever.” Given these liberating effects of reading, it comes as no surprise that a single-party regime would stifle freedom of the press. That is the rational thing to do. And it has been the CCP’s official policy since 1949. While the media environment in China has never been truly free—the “Great Firewall” comes to mind— it is now becoming demonstrably less free. Freedom House, a democracy watchdog, reported that in 2014, “for the first time in years, mainstream print journalists were

formally arrested or sentenced to prison.” An anonymous letter to “Comrade Xi” from self-described “Loyal Communist Party Members” recently prompted a spate of detentions and disappearances. Just in February, Xi conducted an official visit to the “Big Three” of Chinese state-run media: Xinhua, the PRC’s official press agency; CCTV, the state-run television network; and the People’s Daily, a newspaper. While at CCTV headquarters, Xi declared: “All the work by the party’s media must reflect the party’s will, safeguard the party’s authority, and safeguard the party’s unity… They must love the party, protect the party, and closely align themselves with the party leadership in thought, politics and action.” With these principles as the new standard, China’s media environment will only grow more repressive.

Cult of Personality

Xi is China’s most charismatic leader since Mao. With a commanding personal presence and pop-star wife in Peng Liyuan, Xi’s public presence marks a significant departure from the stuffy,

understated style of his technocratic predecessor, Hu Jintao. Xi and Peng together amount to China’s first contemporary presidential couple in the mold of the Kennedys or the Reagans. As Xi was being groomed to replace Hu, state media went so far as to release a song in the couple’s honor: “Xi Dada Loves Peng Mama,” a title redolent of neo-Confucian filial piety. All evidence suggests that Xi is going to great lengths to foster a cult of personality. The Economist reports: “Since becoming military chief and general secretary of the Communist Party in November 2012 and president in March 2013... Xi has been sending a clear message that the country is not just ruled by a faceless party—it is ruled by a man.” The New York Times has dubbed the growing enthusiasm “Xi Fever” and notes that the Chinese leader has even inspired a new musical theater production (Hamilton is unlikely to headline theaters in Beijing any time soon).

Grand Public Spectacles

The Chinese president is becoming much more like the American president: a unifying figure citizens look to for reassurance in times of turmoil. With the spread of television and mobile technology in China, as well as the dramatic increase in China’s state capacity, it is becoming more important for the Chinese president to shape public opinion through the media when crises emerge or natural disasters occur. Dramatic political imagery—such as footage of the Chinese president dedicating museums, memorials, An early sketch of China’s “glorious and monuments of history” narrative debuted at the opening historical import— ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. will only become Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. more prominent. SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

The CCP is, in effect, moving the goalposts. Economic growth will no longer serve as as the supreme metric of ‘job performance.’

The CCP’s Dilemma

Herein lies the dilemma: China is growing too slowly to rely on,

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

Inspiration from a Neighbor

SPRING 2016

most successful policies in Russia’s nationalist resurgence.

Stoking Nationalist Sentiment Expanding Media Control

Cult of Personality

Xi is China’s most charismatic leader since Mao. With a commanding personal presence and pop-star wife in Peng Liyuan, Xi’s public presence marks a significant departure from the stuffy,

Grand Public Spectacles

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

the international media will take notice. With social media now the dominant mode of sharing news, we can expect stories of “disappeared” Chinese dissidents to spread in online communities. We will see their photos, read their words, watch their videos. Hashtags will call for China to release them; the outcry of public opinion will force foreign leaders to bring up online dissidents in high-level meetings with Chinese leaders. The CCP will have to choose between two intolerable options: condone more online dissent, or suffer international consequences.

Last Man Standing

Peng Mama and Xi Dada personify the Chinese nation. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Former Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao provided an example of how Chinese leaders can awaken nationalist sentiment in moments of crisis. When an earthquake struck Sichuan province in 2008, he mobilized the People’s Liberation Army to provide rescue and relief services, then visited the affected region. Photojournalists captured an emotional Wen embracing children whose parents were missing; one image went viral and public attitudes swung in favor of the government’s response. In the age of Xi, presidents, not premiers, will surely take responsibility for disaster relief. They would be wise to imitate Wen’s emotional style.

Implications

This third section is by nature speculative. It is one thing to know what Xi is doing today; it is another thing entirely to predict what he or his successors will do tomorrow. Nonetheless, based on sound reasoning and the best current information, we can predict some key implications, one for each level of Chinese politics: first, the relationship between individuals and the state; second, structural changes in top-level

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

national politics; and third, China’s relationships with its East Asian neighbors.

Online Defiance

The smartphone age promises relative gains for individuals at the expense of the state. Even though the CCP will continue to expand media control, disseminate self-serving propaganda, and quash dissent, structural challenges lurk for the censorship regime. China’s youth are already chafing under the “Great Firewall”; it is unlikely that they will settle for limited internet freedom, particularly as hundreds of thousands return from universities in the West. Iran’s Green Revolution serves as a cautionary tale: in the age of the camera-phone, repressive regimes must tread lightly, for murder can go viral. The name of a single dissident can become a rallying cry for the entire world. We will soon witness “cyber Tiananmens,” as individual dissidents, like the Tank Man before them, publicly defy the Chinese state. But even if the Chinese state manages to silence and censor individual dissidents before news spreads to the Chinese people,

Over the past 30 years, the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party has acted as a plural executive in which the president serves as a primus inter pares, not an all-powerful figure in his own right. The committee’s other members, such as the premier, typically exercise broad discretion within their own domains. That is all now in flux. Xi assumed command of the military four months before becoming President—yes, the Chinese president typically serves concurrently as Party Chairman, President of the People’s Republic, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission—during which time he managed to consolidate more power than any Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. For the past two years, he has led a vigorous anti-corruption campaign that has left him far more powerful than his colleagues on the Standing Committee. Xi has singlehandedly transformed a board of equals into a cabinet, that is, a group of administrators subordinate to the president. Xi’s centralization of power means more than just bolstering his own image; he is also, in the words of the “Comrade Xi” letter circulated in March of this year, abandoning the “democratic system of the collective leadership of the Standing Committee.” Furthermore, Xi’s cult of personality calls into question the merits of the 10-year leadership rotation. For the decades before Xi, members of the Standing Committee served two five-year terms and then stepped aside to allow the next generation to assume control. But after Xi has gone to all this trouble to centralize power and develop a cult of personality, will he want to step aside and allow the next generation to take power? Will the Chinese people happily wave goodbye to “Dada Xi”? These questions dog any consideration of what comes next in Chinese politics.

Towards a Nationalist History

In December 2014, Xi spoke to thousands at a massive memorial complex in Nanjing, unveiling a new national holiday to commemorate the atrocities visited upon that coastal Chinese city by Imperial Japan in 1937. Nationalism demands an emotionallycharged encounter with the past—think of how an

American heart swells at the words of the Declaration of Independence, or the sight of the Stars and Stripes rising over Iwo Jima, or the footage of the March on Washington—and China is just beginning a nationalist reimagining of its history. State-sponsored history must string together discrete events into a coherent narrative of a “glorious past” that citizens can view with pride. The nationalist narrative will trace an arc from the imperial glory to humiliation under imperial powers to independence under Mao and finally a return to international power under the likes of Deng and Xi. History is the central paradox of modern China: the further China hurtles into the future, the more the Chinese will obsess over their past. State rhetoric linking a glorious Sino-centric past with a Chinese-dominated future will trouble China’s neighbors. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe— whose campaign posters featured the slogan “Restore Japan” superimposed over an image of Mount Fuji—is already fanning the flames of Japanese nationalism. Nationalists in South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and other neighboring countries will all follow Abe’s example. An emotional ideology, nationalism provokes unforeseen reactions, such as the 2014 torching of 15 Chinese-owned factories during anti-China protests in Vietnam. Nationalists are opening a Pandora’s box, with consequences that even the most far-sighted central planners cannot possibly know or fully control.

Nationalism is the New Technocracy

As the Chinese Communist Party bids farewell to the technocratic legitimacy that has undergirded its rule for the past 38 years and adopts this new model of nationalist legitimacy in its place, China observers can expect more media repression, a growing personality cult around President Xi, and grand public displays designed to evoke the greatness of China’s past or its present-day resilience in the face of crises natural and man-made. In turn, these dramatic changes in Chinese policy will spark Internet clashes between dissidents and the state, continued centralization of presidential power, and an intense preoccupation with the past that will further embroil China in disputes with its neighbors. Gone are the days of thinking that China would emerge as a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. The new nationalism spells a more authoritarian China at home and a more assertive China abroad. Technocracy is out, nationalism is in, and Xi is leading the way. Matthew King is a Trinity sophomore majoring in political science. He is chair of the American Grand Strategy Council.

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

IN-DEPTH

Last Man Standing

Peng Mama and Xi Dada personify the Chinese nation. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Implications

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

national politics; and third, China’s relationships with its East Asian neighbors.

Online Defiance

Towards a Nationalist History

Nationalism is the New Technocracy

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

Elections Special Section

What Happened to the Party Boss? - 31 By Sarah Sibley

Defying Political Gravity - 35 By Gautam Hathi By Gautam Hathi

Ugly Political Ugly Political Gerrymandering38 GerrymanderingBy 34Connor Phillips 28

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

Elections Special Section

What Happened to the Party Boss? - 31 By Sarah Sibley

Defying Political Gravity - 35 By Gautam Hathi By Gautam Hathi

Ugly Political Ugly Political Gerrymandering38 GerrymanderingBy 34Connor Phillips 28

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

What Happened to the Party Boss? The Pitiful State of the State Party, The New Machine Politics, and Why it Matters By Sarah Sibley

Illustration of Boss Tweed. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 30

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

It was getting late one summer day in 1948, and Lyndon Johnson’s Senate hopes were slipping through his fingers. With all the votes in, Lyndon Johnson seemed to have lost his bid for the Democratic Senate nomination by 112 votes. One phone call later, however, and George Parr, the socalled Duke of Duval County and the boss of the local party machine, “found” an additional 202 votes, 200 of which were for Johnson. This type of behavior was not unheard of among state and local party machines—organizations that used to print their own ballots, exact payment from public employees, and pay voters to show up to events. The modern day local party has gotten more boring and more democratic, two undoubtedly positive trends. A far cry from the era of party-machine politics, the modern local party often finds itself too anemic to compete for space in the crowded political marketplace. Once the center of campaign life, state, and county party organizations have largely emptied. Resources instead flow to highly technical but temporary senate, gubernatorial, and presidential campaigns, and, increasingly, to unaccountable outside groups like Super PACs. While campaigns are becoming more data-driven, and to a certain extent more permanent than ever, the disassociation of robust campaigning with any local, enduring class of political leaders has left local leaders bereft of the resources necessary to carry out long-term party interests. Although a larger campaign may attract mountains of money, they also divert the cash flow from local party organizations that the down-ballot candidates rely on for funding. Without the local party, a senatorial candidate does just fine, but a state house candidate,

county commissioner, or city-councilman starves for resources. This relative decline in local party power leaves localities vulnerable to a new type of machine politics, one where independently-funded and more ideological groups, like super PACs, perform an increasing share of the roles normally performed by local parties. We are worse off for it.

Local Parties are Essential

State parties perform necessary functions for any democracy. While satisfaction with both parties is low, and voters increasingly refuse to affiliate with either party, studies have shown that 90% of voters still behave like partisans at the ballot box. And while voters may bemoan their existence, state parties quite literally organize democracy, and no democracy exists without them. They help transform a confusion of tastes into a condensed, binary choice. Voters decry polarization and partisanship, but they would be wrong to blame party organizations for either. While it may seem counter-intuitive, strong party apparatuses actually work as forces against polarization. According to political scientists Dr. Ray La Raja and Dr. Jonathan Rauch, states with stronger parties tend to have less polarized state legislatures than states with weaker ones. Local parties have an incentive to recruit a candidate who can win a tight race, not a candidate who matches a particular ideological profile. As a result, candidates recruited by parties tend to be more moderate than candidates recruited by outside interest groups. SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

What Happened to the Party Boss? The Pitiful State of the State Party, The New Machine Politics, and Why it Matters By Sarah Sibley

Illustration of Boss Tweed. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 30

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Local Parties are Essential

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

Local parties are the basic unit in politics; they are accessible to the people, locally accountable, and charged with keeping voters engaged at the grassroots level. They are “integrative” and “keepers of the political brand” says Rauch. State and local parties perform critical function in today’s democracy, and are a voter’s point of access to campaigns from city council to president. Local parties, most crucially, provide key services for local candidates who get drowned out by expensive top-ticket races. County parties used to be reliably counted upon as a source of funding and volunteers for local candidates, and were the main organ for getting local messages out. Local politics are the politics voters are most likely to be affected by, and local candidates need local party organizations to function. Local party organizations used to benefit from the resources of larger campaigns. In 2004, for instance, John Kerry’s field program was run out of local party offices. His field team had simply dropped off yard signs and let county parties drive the turnout operation. Presidential and other top-ticket races needed local organizations to compete. Now, they overlook them entirely. Come 2008, President Obama’s famously sophisticated, efficient, and well-endowed campaign largely ignored county party organizations. Instead, Obama’s team set up an entirely new, parallel organization, Obama for America (OFA), tasked with voter turnout. In the era of the “professional campaign,” big ticket campaigns draw expertise and dollars. They are replete with highly technical data and digital teams and dozens of full-time field organizers. However, while local Democratic candidates benefited from the increased turnout from OFA, federal and state regulations ban federal candidates (president, senator, congressmen) from any direct coordination with local candidates. Funds for federal election activity and state activity must be kept in separate

accounts, and sorting it out is a bureaucratic nightmare. That means, more often than not, local candidates do not get access to any of the increased resources from a Presidential fundraising-boom year. Local parties may not see new sources of funding, but just as much work is demanded from them as ever before. “What we’re asking them to do is impossible,” says Linda Rockwell, former Democratic Party Chair of Jefferson County, Colorado’s most populous county. Winning Jefferson County is crucial to any statewide candidate’s strategy, yet the Jefferson County Democrats are expected to turn out one-seventh of Colorado’s voters with a $40,000 annual budget. “Everybody has a fulltime job,” says Rockwell. “There is a chairman, and a vice chairman, and both have full-time jobs.” And while the county party was never flush with resources, the party finds itself more squeezed than ever. Rockwell describes, “Now, we don’t even have an office manager… even when the party was no-wheres-ville, we had an office manager.”

McCain Feingold and The Cost to Compete

While the trends of increased professionalization and nationalization of campaigns are long standing (one can look to the rise of television, post-1968 reforms in both parties, and the first campaign consultancy group, Campaigns, INC in the 1930s), state party officers in both parties point to the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill as the nail in the coffin for state parties. By limiting the individual contributions allowed for state parties and divorcing state and federal election funds, the perverse effect of McCain-Feingold was to empower federal candidates’ campaigns and independent political action committees, or PACs, at the expense of state and local campaigns. The result is that, while the budgets of state parties have not fallen in absolute terms, they have collapsed in relative terms. In 2000, nonparty spending outstripped party spending on elections by about 5 to 1 in some states; today, non-party spending outpaces party spending in those states by a factor of almost 40 to 1. State parties report giving fewer resources to local candidates than they did in 2000 and, in some cases, are even raising less money than they did 15 years ago. McCain-Feingold creates almost absurd complexities that skeletal party organizations must navigate. State party volunteers making phone calls about a presidential race cannot mention local candidates, David Koch attends Americans Senators cannot help fundraise for Prosperity event. Photo by for local candidates, and federal Gage Skidmore.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

candidates can appear in mailers with local candidates only in some circumstances but not others, for instance. To make matters worse, prior to former DNC chair Howard Dean’s strategy to reinvigorate the Democratic Party, many Democratic state parties could not even afford an accountant or a lawyer to navigate the byzantine campaign finance process, resulting in costly fines. State laws can be just as burdensome, and often just as absurd. When Linda Rockwell steered the Jefferson County Democrats from 1993 to 1997, she raised money at the group’s marquee auction by asking local restaurants to donate gift certificates. Now, since Colorado has passed a law banning such “corporate contributions,” the county party’s Roosevelt Dinner auction features gifts only the volunteers themselves will donate. (They mostly hawk vintage campaign material or luncheons with other members). Federal candidates, on the other hand, are not similarly hamstrung and are raising record levels of money. Strict rules on which funds may be used for local candidates, combined with voter apathy toward local races, mean that while a congressman may raise millions of dollars to compete in Jefferson County, a county commissioner, who has to reach the same number of voters, might hope for $75,000 or $100,000 in an extraordinary year. Local messages are drowned out, and local candidates have a more difficult time differentiating their race from federal ones. This makes local candidates increasingly vulnerable in years that do not favor their party, and reliant on outside groups as a way to get their message heard. To circumvent the fundraising problem, state and national parties often create larger “campaign committees” to centralize resources and expertise, operating similarly to PACs. For example, a state party may sponsor a “House Majority Project,” charged with recruiting, funding, and sponsoring messaging for state house candidates. While these groups have brought the resources and efficiency of a larger campaign (local groups can buy targeting lists from their national party organization), they also tend to operate like PACs, only spending money in the races they see as most competitive. The result is that groups like The House Majority Project in Colorado pull out of races activists say were winnable simply because the campaign had not met specific fundraising requirements and were no longer considered viable. While campaigns are getting better at turning out voters, it is Photo by Robin Kanouse often at the expense of groups

looking out for permanent party interests. Parties may create large, multi-million dollar “coordinated campaigns” in a midterm year, or a sophisticated turnout operation. Yet, the day after the election, “99% of the volunteers are gone,” says Rockwell. Many state parties are forgoing some of the basic services parties used to give to local candidates. For instance, only 41% of state parties surveyed by Rauch and La Raja in 2015 are donating to local races, compared to 70% of state parties surveyed by Dr. John Aldrich (of Duke) in 1999. Fewer are sponsoring their own television ads or sending out statewide mailers. There are darker consequences to this trend. Super PACs, unburdened by either the disclosure or campaign finance limitations imposed on party organizations, have filled the void. “Regulations have distorted the electoral marketplace” say Rauch and La Raja. According to their study, in most states with limitations on individual contributions to parties, more than half of their advertisements are paid for by outside groups, while in most states with no limitations on individual contributions, less than half of advertisements are paid for by outside groups. In response, some parties are trying to start their own PACs. Most worryingly, some PACs seem to be starting their own parties. Increasingly, party organizations rely on outside PACs to perform the same operations the state parties used to perform.

The New Party Machine

Democrats and Republicans alike rely on their “affiliate” organizations to turn out the vote. In Colorado’s 2014 senate race, it was taken for granted that the Democrat’s “partner” groups would provide the second, third, or fourth knock on a turnout target’s door. For Democrats, the independent de-facto arm of the party consists of groups like Emily’s List, MoveOn.org, and the Democracy

of an office of the Colorado Democratic Party. SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

McCain Feingold and The Cost to Compete

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

The New Party Machine

of an office of the Colorado Democratic Party. SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

Alliance, a collection of labor and environmental groups. The looming shadow group of the Republican Party is the Koch Network, and it is large enough that it threatens to overshadow it entirely. In 2012, for instance, the Koch Network raised $1 billion, matching the campaigns of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Groups like the Kochs’ are not a product of Citizens United, though they have been strengthened by it. The Koch Network, a constellation of conservative groups, now operates in 34 states, and, in some states, out-performs state Republican parties at their own bread and butter. The Koch network recruits candidates for offices, fundraises, knock on doors, raises its own volunteer army, and maintains a data system (i360) so sophisticated that it is sought after by the Republican Party itself (except the Kochs refuse to release it). Democrats and Republicans are not affected by these trends equally. According to Harvard’s Theda Skocpol, more money has been diverted from the Republican Party to its outside groups than from the Democratic Party to its outside groups. This is significant because outside groups tend to be more ideological than the parties themselves. In Skocpol’s analysis, this diversion of funds has led to Republican candidates that are not only more conservative than the average voter, but more conservative than the average Republican voter, and is a key driver of Republican asymmetric polarization. The relative strength of Republican affiliate groups over Democratic ones, in part a result of the declining strength of labor and their increasing ambivalence about the Democratic Party, means that Republican groups are often better positioned to help conservative local candidates. The Koch Network has made a habit of investing in local races it sees as key, especially in low-turnout years where a modest investment yields greater returns. For instance, the Koch group Americans for Prosperity invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a pothole tax in the mid-sized city of Colorado Springs. In 2013, Democrats accused the Koch Network of “buying” a conservative majority on the Jefferson County Board of Education, which later drew national headlines for its attempt to revise the US history curriculum to be one that better espoused “the virtues of the free enterprise system,” “respect for authority,”

and emphasized the more “positive aspects of American history.” In addition to existing budget constraints, campaign finance laws barring party involvement in “nonpartisan elections,” such as the school board race, mean that party organizations by themselves are powerless to compete against outside, extra-party groups. When the Jefferson County School Board members were eventually recalled, Democrats did so through an outside group, not through the party organization.

The Way Forward

Poorly targeted campaign finance regulations have hamstrung the most accountable and accessible organizations, the state and local parties, and have pushed campaign funds to outside groups that are not accountable to voters at all. In response, Rauch and Raja argue for a campaign finance system that “builds channels, not dams.” If the era of big money is really here to stay, argue the two political scientists, we could direct more funds toward toward state parties at the expense of super PACs by loosening state party disclosure requirements and campaign contribution restrictions. Less controversially, other experts argue that the time has come to let the party apparatus coordinate with candidates, among other reforms. Democratic reforms in both parties have led opaque, corrupt, and unaccountable organizations to become open, accountable, and responsive to its members. Few would compare any local party today to Tammany Hall, and there is no local party boss comparable to Boss Tweed or the Duke of Duval County. But machine-style politics has not gone away; it has only transformed. Without reform, we will only make our local candidates more susceptible to the new political machine—the super PAC—and deliver our local offices into the arms of outside interest groups, organizations in which our citizens have no stake or control. We need to strengthen our local parties; our democracy depends on it.

Machine-style politics has not gone away, it has only transformed.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Sarah Sibley is a Trinity first-year from Colorado majoring in political science and economics. She is a columnist for DPR.

Defying Political Gravity How To Win Elections Under Austerity By Gautam Hathi

s Big Ben struck 10pm, the BBC’s David Dimbleby revealed on live TV the shocking information written on a card he held in his hand. After five years in government, exit polls from the 2015 general election indicated that the Conservative Party would be returned to power in the United Kingdom, possibly with a majority. The final election results would be even better for the Conservatives than predicted, but pundits, pollsters, and political hacks were certain that the exit polls had missed the mark. The problem was this: a Conservative reelection in the UK

defied the laws of political gravity. The Conservatives, led by Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, spent five years implementing a deep and painful program of tax hikes and spending cuts in order to reduce the UK’s budget deficit. While the classic way to win votes is to lower taxes and spend money for the benefit of the public, David Cameron had done exactly the opposite. And yet, he won.

Tightening Europe’s Belt

Valuable political lessons can be extracted from the political feats of Cameron and a select few other European SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

The Way Forward

Machine-style politics has not gone away, it has only transformed.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Sarah Sibley is a Trinity first-year from Colorado majoring in political science and economics. She is a columnist for DPR.

Defying Political Gravity How To Win Elections Under Austerity By Gautam Hathi

Tightening Europe’s Belt

Valuable political lessons can be extracted from the political feats of Cameron and a select few other European SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

leaders. But to discover how rare political victories can be snatched from the jaws of austerity, it is necessary to trace the path of European austerity back to its origins. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, austerity programs, which cut budgets and raised taxes to reduce deficits, were all the rage in Europe. It seemed that almost every government in the Eurozone either imposed an austerity program or had one imposed upon it when funds became hard to come by and a bailout was necessary. Since Eurozone countries were bound by a common currency, they could not print money to pay their bills or stimulate their economies. The EU also imposed budget deficit controls on its members, which made cutting budgets the only option available to many European governments. The economic and social effects of austerity were harsh. Unemployment shot up across the EU to an average of almost 11 percent and annual GDP growth barely broke 2 percent after the crisis hit. In the countries with the harshest austerity programs, these economic declines translated into painful social consequences. Poverty rates rose modestly in Europe after 2010, but in Greece, which faced massive budget cuts, the poverty rate spiked from roughly 15 percent to just under 25 percent, with youth unemployment much higher. And just because governments imposed austerity measures didn’t always mean that deficits decreased as much as expected. In many cases, the lost tax revenues resulting from the economic downturn meant that deficits stayed stubbornly high despite budget cuts. David Cameron’s government promised to eliminate the UK’s deficit by 2015, but that projection has been pushed back by more than five years.

The Political Bloodletting

The economic and social pain wrought by austerity left budget-cutting governments politically vulnerable. Large scale protests occurred regularly in many countries. In the UK, there was widespread discontent over increased college tuition fees. In Ireland, civil servants went on strike. In Italy, Spain, Portugal, and more, tens or hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets. Protests in Greece garnered worldwide attention, with many wondering if protesters would storm government buildings. The era of austerity also saw the rise of extremist and populist movements across Europe, from Greece’s Golden Dawn to Britain’s UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Italy’s Five Star Party. These groups took advantage of dissatisfaction with traditional policies, including austerity budgets, and sometimes made wild, dangerous, or wonderful promises to their fervent supporters. Extremists gained influence both within the left and right wings of existing political parties and as new upstart movements.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

In general, governments paid a heavy political price for taking a machete to their budgets. From Greece to Ireland, Prime Ministers and Presidents were kicked out after growing discontent fueled by a combination of bad economic times and tightening fiscal posture. From 2010 to 2015, the ruling governments in Ireland, Italy, France, Poland, Greece, and more lost elections. But some governments survived, or at least failed to collapse.

The Success Stories

The UK presented the most dramatic case of austerity success. David Cameron’s government came to power in 2010 as a coalition between the Conservatives, who had the largest number of seats in Parliament, and the Liberal Democrats. The government was put together on a platform of austerity, but lost public support rapidly after the election. The Conservatives had a lower approval rating than the opposition Labour party through the next election in 2015, and the Liberal Democrats’ support collapsed when they reneged on a campaign promise to block college tuition increases. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who was responsible for implementing the government’s austerity plan, became one of the most unpopular politicians in Britain. At the same time, the far-right UKIP rose quickly and soon became more popular than the Liberal Democrats. As the 2015 UK general elections rolled around, the Conservatives looked like they were headed for a bad election night. Even though no single party had emerged as a clear alternative to the Conservatives, there was talk of a leftwing coalition involving Labour and the surging Scottish National Party. The Conservatives were also losing ground

on their right flank to UKIP, and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners seemed headed toward a historic election defeat. When election night came around, no one was expecting the Conservative Party to win. Paddy Ashdown, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, famously said during a BBC election night special that he would “eat his hat” if an exit poll showing the Conservatives far ahead turned out to be true. But the Conservatives not only maintained their power—they won a majority of seats, enabling them to form a single-party government. In other countries, the outcome was not so dramatic, but the results were still surprising. In Spain, the moderately right-wing People’s Party (PP), led by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, also spent five years imposing austerity measures on the Spanish economy, which was even harder hit by the recession than Great Britain. Rajoy eased up on the austerity policies heading into the 2015 elections, but the cumulative effect was still harsh. Spain’s unemployment had peaked above 25 percent in 2012 and was still above 20 percent as the election neared. When the election finally came, the results were not great for the austerity government, but not a complete rejection either. Rajoy’s People’s Party ended up with the largest number of votes and the largest block in the legislature, though it fell short of a majority. Anti-austerity parties surged, but parties supporting austerity measures (Rajoy’s PP and the opposition Socialist, or PSOE, party) still hold a majority of seats. Spain has yet to form a government after the December election, but it seems that PP, if not Rajoy himself, will likely have a significant role in whatever government is formed. And it seems that no matter what happens, parties supporting austerity will remain in control.

Threading the Needle

So what allowed these austerity governments to succeed where others failed? Each European country where an austerity government has won an election over the past 10 years has had a different political situation, but there are common threads. The austerity governments that succeeded have enjoyed some semblance of economic growth and have successfully exploited fragmentation within their opposition. Both in the UK and in Spain, economic growth was sluggish, and occasionally nonexistent, but there was never a catastrophic economic situation. In countries such as Greece, where the impacts of austerity compounded crushing blows from the financial crisis, austerity governments had no hope. In countries such as the UK and Spain, governments were able to argue that interest rate increases and a potential fiscal crisis later on would be worse than immediate austerity measures. In contrast, Greece was suffering badly enough that people needed immediate relief, rather than more pain. However, a little bit of economic growth is not always enough to save an austerity government. In Portugal,

the conservative Prime Minister Pedro Passos imposed austerity measures in exchange for an EU bailout. As in Spain, the toll of the financial crisis combined with austerity measures was high, but not crippling. Passos went to the polls earlier this year and managed to win the largest block of seats, as Rajoy did in Spain. However, 11 days after Passos put together a minority government, the opposition parties joined together and brought it down. Political skill also has an impact on the ability of governments to remain in power. Successful austerity governments not only had good economic fortune but were also able to cleverly exploit divisions between or within their political opponents. In the UK, David Cameron was not seen as especially popular, but Ed Miliband, the head of the opposition Labour party, was generally seen as worse, in part due to merciless attacks on his personal image by the Conservatives. Cameron was also able to enjoy electoral success by politically outmaneuvering his own coalition partners. Many of the seats newly won by the Conservatives in the 2015 election were taken not from the Labour Party, but rather from the Liberal Democrats in the southwest of England. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy won a plurality and still stands a chance of forming a government. Whether he manages to do so will depend on how adeptly he deals with his political opposition. Rajoy did not suffer a large defeat perhaps in large part because the alternative to the PP is not clear. PSOE supports many of the same austerity policies as Rajoy, and the other opposition parties are untested and in some cases single-issue focused. If the PP can thread the needle between the new opposition parties and PSOE, they may be able to stay in power, or at least secure a role for themselves in a governing coalition. That will require playing some serious politics. David Cameron was able to work his political skill before the elections, but Mariano Rajoy and the PP will have to win the game of coalition negotiations or do better in a fresh round of elections. Of course, no matter how much political skill a leader or a political party has, succeeding in bad economic times is never easy. In many cases, implementing serious tax increases and spending cuts is surefire political self-immolation. But the few examples in which austerity governments have succeeded recently in Europe give a possible path to success. The right combination of economic good fortune and political wherewithal might just be enough to save a leader from the cold darkness of opposition. The path to victory in times of austerity is long, narrow, and full of obstacles, but it is there. Gautam Hathi is a junior from Seattle, WA majoring in computer science. In addition to writing about the political impacts of European austerity, Gautam also enjoys analyzing data and building software.

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

The Political Bloodletting

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

The Success Stories

Threading the Needle

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

Mapmaker, Mapmaker, Make Me a Map: Partisan Redistricting and American Politics By Connor Phillips

By Connor Phillips

n February 5, 2016, a panel of federal judges ruled that North Carolina’s 1st and 12th Congressional districts were unconstitutional. Their boundaries, Judge Roger Gregory of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote for the majority, had been drawn to consolidate black voters into the two districts, a disenfranchisement violating the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law to all citizens. Sent back to the drawing board (literally), the Republican-dominated legislature quickly appointed a redistricting committee to re-draw the state’s thirteen legislative districts. This time, the commission would be careful not to let voters’ race dictate the drawing of maps. Instead, it would rigidly adhere to a legally distinct but functionally equivalent criterion: “Our intent is to use the political data we have to our partisan advantage,” explained State Representative David Lewis (R-Harnett). Just like its predecessor, the map they eventually released would elect 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats to the House—in a state that Mitt Romney only carried 50%-48% in 2012.

Defining the Problem

On the face of it, this spectacle is absurd. Disenfranchising ethnic minorities is unconstitutional, but disenfranchising the political minority is perfectly legal. Control of the state legislature during the decennial redistricting process decides control of a state’s congressional delegation for the next ten years. And representatives— who often come from the ranks of state legislators—can choose their voters rather than the other way around. Further, pundits, and politicians alike have warned that the practice of drawing congressional districts to favor a particular party reinforces polarization in Congress. When the primary election is more decisive than the general, representatives must kowtow to the extreme party activists who turn out to vote in primaries. If you break with liberal or conservative orthodoxy, so the story goes, you get “primaried”—defeated by an unknown

or inexperienced opponent like Dave Brat, who felled House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in 2014 by adopting a more conservative policy on immigration. Even President Obama attributes the intransigence of the House of Representatives to “sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican.” This story, however, has a fundamental flaw: it’s simply not true. Partisan gerrymandering does not meaningfully impact polarization, and the focus on the redistricting-partisanship connection only serves to obscure the more complex, yet arguably more pernicious, impacts that redistricting does have on the political process. And approaching the problem through the lens of polarization suggests reforms that will only make the problem worse. To fully understand why, we must first examine how the current system came to be.

A Brief History of Redistricting

The modern system of redistricting was born with the 1962 Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr. Until that point, there was no uniform standard for redistricting in many states, and congressional district lines, once drawn, tended to persist. Because cities had grown over the past century while rural areas shrank, by the 1960s, rural residents exerted disproportionate power in state legislatures. The courts did not interfere because jurisprudence held that congressional district lines were a “political” question to be decided by the people’s elected representatives, not the courts. But when Memphis Mayor Charles Baker sued Tennessee Secretary of State Joe Carr, claiming it was unconstitutional for Memphis to be represented by the same number of legislators as rural areas with a tenth of its population, this consensus was shaken. After a year of internal debate so intense that Associate Justice Charles Evans Whittaker suffered a nervous breakdown and was forced to retire, the court sided with Baker: redistricting was a justiciable question. America’s courts had just inserted themselves into the process of determining

congressional representation. This decision had enormous political consequences. Two years later, Wesberry v. Sanders applied the famous “one person, one vote” standard to congressional districts, dictating that they must be redrawn every ten years to be made as equal in population as possible. The redistricting decisions boosted the political voice of cities, which tended to have higher populations of immigrants, blacks, and (in the North) Democrats. At the same time, the passage of the Voting Rights Act, which enfranchised Southern black voters, led to a concerted effort by liberal Democrats to ensure the drawing of majority-minority districts that would guarantee congressional representation to the newly empowered communities of color. Finally, a 1967 law did away with statewide elections of representatives, another tool used to disenfranchise black voters, by mandating that states establish singlemember districts. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court put several limits on this process, warning that determining congressional lines solely by race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and that such maps would be overturned unless they were the best means to further a “compelling government interest.” It was under this standard that North Carolina’s 1st and 12th were overturned. Jurisdiction on politically driven redistricting, however, has been more muddled: the Court concluded that such cases were justiciable in 1986 but failed to agree on a standard to determine constitutionality (as per the judiciary’s historic reluctance to interfere with “political questions”). Consequently, claims of discrimination based on party accordingly tend not to succeed in the courts.

Partisan Gerrymanders

Drawing jurisdictional lines to favor a particular party is nothing new, of course. The popular name for the practice—“gerr ymandering”—was born in 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry reluctantly approved a plan that drew oddly shaped districts (one apparently resembling a salamander) in an effort to elect

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

Mapmaker, Mapmaker, Make Me a Map: Partisan Redistricting and American Politics By Connor Phillips

By Connor Phillips

Defining the Problem

A Brief History of Redistricting

Partisan Gerrymanders

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

Democratic-Republicans. But it was only in recent decades, with the arrival of sophisticated mapmaking technology, granular demographic information, and intense partisanship, that redistricting became a blood sport. In 2010, the Republicans swept North Carolina’s legislature and drew a map that switched the state’s House delegation from a 7-6 Democratic advantage to a 10-3 Republican advantage. In deference to the Voting Rights Act, the districts of black Democrats Mel Watts and G. K. Butterfield (as well as white Democrat David Price, who represents the Research Triangle) were preserved and expanded as Democratic voters were shoved into those three districts. But that story is not unique. Similar gerrymanders also occurred in Illinois and Maryland for Democrats and Pennsylvania and Texas for Republicans. By far the most egregious case, however, remains the 2003 Texas incident. In 2001, when the state legislature was unable to agree on congressional maps, Texas received court-drawn district lines that mildly advantaged Democrats, who won 17 of the 32 seats on offer in 2002. That same year, however, Republicans took control of the Texas state legislature. At the urging of then-US House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and then-Governor

Rick Perry, Republicans introduced legislation to redraw Texas’s lines— without a new census. Although Texas’s Democratic lawmakers fled the state to deprive the legislature of quorum, the plan eventually passed, and the next election six Texas seats flipped to the Republicans, giving the party its largest House majority since 1948. Democrats challenged the results in court, but Texas (represented by future Senator Ted Cruz) came away mostly unscathed—only one of the new districts was overturned, on racial grounds rather than political ones.

Redistricting and Polarization

Plainly, redistricting and partisanship are inextricably intertwined. When it comes to the question of whether gerrymandering directly causes gridlock, however, political scientists are decidedly skeptical. “It is not redistricting, it is not redistricting, it is not redistricting!” thundered Keith Poole of the University of California-San Diego, one of the political scientists who helped to first quantitatively verify that Congress was polarizing, at a conference on the subject. Nolan McCarty of Princeton University further notes that Senate seats are never redistricted, yet the Senate has become almost as polarized as the

House over the past thirty years. Most damningly, when McCarty, Poole, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University ran computer simulations to see if different district lines would produce a less polarized legislature, the impact of redrawing congressional lines was at most marginal. The reason is that population demographics simply lend themselves to “safe” districts—and to an asymmetrical Republican advantage. Democrats tend to be concentrated in densely packed, highly contiguous urban areas, creating plenty of districts where the party has double-digit advantages. Meanwhile, Republicans represent more spread-out rural and suburban areas where partisanship is more diverse but still skews right. This pattern is not just an accident of geography: the more liberal an individual is, the more likely they are to prefer dense, walkable communities, whereas conservatives prefer drivable neighborhoods with more space. Thus, even a map drawn with respect to population—not taking partisanship into account at all—will produce roughly the same effect as a mild Republican gerrymander. And competitive seats will be few and far between: the sad fact is that, increasingly, Democrats and Republicans simply do not live together, and often do not find themselves sharing

From Left to Right: Former Representative Mel Watt, N.C. Rep. David Lewis, Representative Alma Adams. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

each other’s life experiences (a circumstance which may itself have bearing on partisan polarization). Thus, while the partisan skew of congressional districts might reinforce polarization, it is far from clear that redistricting is to blame.

Are Commissions the Solution?

Nevertheless, many still believe that redistricting should be taken out of the hands of parties. In North Carolina, the organization Common Cause has been vociferous in calling for a nonpartisan redistricting process led by legislative staff. But there are several reasons to doubt whether such an initiative, even if enacted, will be successful. First, no nonpartisan commission can dispense with basic demographics. As McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal’s simulations demonstrated, Congress would be relatively polarized even if lines were drawn completely at random. Beyond the difficulty of drawing non-partisan districts is the problem that any process can be gamed if the stakes are high enough. In 2008, California voters approved a ballot initiative empowering a commission of citizens to establish congressional districts based on testimony from the affected communities—with no political data considered whatsoever. At last, politics would be taken out of the redistricting process. But the stakes for the parties were too high for them to simply accept this new arrangement. Democrats, who dominate politics in California, maneuvered to place prearranged testimony before the panel in order to persuade it to adopt lines they wanted. The party and its members created spurious organizations, had personal friends and former employees testify before the panel, and hired firms to supply draft maps consistent with Democratic interests. Ironically, the numerous constraints placed on the commission to prevent it from succumbing to political influence also deprived it of the information that would have shown it how politically skewed its decisions were. The proof was in the pudding: demographic growth had occurred primarily in Republican areas of California, but when the dust

Population demographics simply lend themselves to “safe” districts—and to an asymmetrical Republican advantage.

had settled, four seats switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.

What Can Be Done?

The current system of congressional redistricting clearly needs an overhaul. Fifty years ago, changes were made in law and policy meant to enfranchise those whose vote mattered less: city residents and minorities, populations that were disproportionately Democratic. The fallout from the redistricting revolution, however, has done nearly the opposite. The process naturally advantages Republicans (especially after the party seized control of many state legislatures in 2010, the most recent census year), while urban voters are consolidated into a few districts by geography and communities of color are packed into a few special “majority-minority” districts to adhere to the letter of the VRA but not the spirit. The advantages that redistricting was supposed to erode have returned in a different form. This is not to say that redistricting is a partisan issue. As the anecdotes above demonstrate, both parties have resorted to devious, underhanded, and quasi-illegal maneuvers to extract the maximum possible advantage from the current system. And even if gerrymandering itself does not cause polarization and gridlock, a system that renders around 400 of the 435 House constituencies “safe seats” for one of the parties must bear a share of the blame. The question is what can be done. Some call for House members to be selected based on a statewide proportional vote system. Former Representative Watt introduced a bill that would repeal

the 1967 law requiring House members be elected from single-member districts. However, tying representatives to constituencies brings many benefits: members have more of a sense of the contours of a community, and citizens know whom to contact (at least in theory) when they are in need. Further, such a drastic shift seems infeasible in the short term. Nevertheless, something must change. The stakes of the 2016 election have risen enormously with the passing of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, but they still pale in comparison next to the stakes in 2020: control not just of the presidency but also of Congress and state legislatures for a generation. If recent cycles are any indication, the battle this time will only be more intense. The redistricting wars do not just poison the civic process. When parties fight over electoral rules rather than substantive policies, civic discourse is no longer necessary. Politics becomes not just anti-democratic but ademocratic: the voters are not constituents with concerns to be heeded but rather pawns in the battle for ultimate political control. The means of enacting a party’s ends become ends in themselves, and gridlock and obstruction is the inevitable result. This is not good for democracy, and it is not good for America. But for now, there appears to be no way out. Connor Phillips is a Trinity junior majoring in political science with a certificate in philosophy, politics, and economics. He currently serves as DPR’s Online Managing Editor.

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ELECTIONS

Redistricting and Polarization

From Left to Right: Former Representative Mel Watt, N.C. Rep. David Lewis, Representative Alma Adams. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Are Commissions the Solution?

Population demographics simply lend themselves to “safe” districts—and to an asymmetrical Republican advantage.

had settled, four seats switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.

What Can Be Done?

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

INTERVIEWS

Interviews

The 2016 Elections From Capitol Hill

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

factoring into this, it would be in pushing our case in the Supreme Court fight.

DPR: We’ve begun all of our guest interviews with the same question, which is: How has the presidential election affected your day-to-day work? A J: Well, as of two weeks ago, it was only going to be tangential to our work. The plan for this year before [Justice Scalia] passed away was just to have the Senate and the House not enter into it. That was by design. The Republican leader Mitch McConnell just wanted to pass some medium-scale bills, do the appropriations process, and stay out of the news, in order to let people run their races… his main goal was to stay out of the presidential race. Then Scalia passed away, and all of a sudden, we’re right in the forefront of everything, including the presidential race. And these are the kinds of fights that Senator Reid was born to engage with. I think it’s really energized Democrats across the board, and I think people are deeply offended at the way Republicans are treating the president and his future nominee. It’s given us an issue that’s extremely important, an issue that will continue to be in the public eye and at the forefront of the campaign, I think for probably the entire duration. So if you had to name one way in which the Senate and our work on the Democratic side was

DPR: You mentioned that you had worked with the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) before entering politics, and between political jobs, you worked at the Center for American Progress. How have these experiences informed your work in politics? AJ: It’s helped me go into politics with a very acute sense of how public policy matters. It impacts people on the ground and their day-to-day lives. I was very inspired by those kids on a daily basis, and they continue to inspire me. KIPP’s motto is “no excuses,” and not to generalize, but a lot of the kids that we worked with had to put up with and fight through a lot more by the age of 13 or 14… their issues are far more challenging than most things I’ve had to deal with in my life, so it puts things in perspective and it helps you believe that there really shouldn’t be any excuses. You should be able to get things done. DPR: The rise of Donald Trump within the Republican primary has led many to talk about a “schism” potentially occurring. Based on your firsthand knowledge, what do you think is likely to happen? AJ: I think there’s a break coming. I think that we have seen it on the Hill, because what we’ve seen since the 2010 midterms was Republican leaders stok-

By Alex Song and Khloe Kim An Interview With

Adam Jentleson Adam Jentleson is the Deputy Chief of Staff for Senator Harry Reid. He previously served as Senator Reid’s Communications Director from 2011 to 2015. Prior to that, he spent six years working at the intersection of policy and politics on two presidential campaigns for John Kerry in 2004 and John Edwards in 2008, and for nonprofit organizations such as the Center for American Progress. Before entering politics he taught at the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) charter school in the Bronx, New York.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

INTERVIEWS

Interviews

The 2016 Elections From Capitol Hill

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

factoring into this, it would be in pushing our case in the Supreme Court fight.

By Alex Song and Khloe Kim An Interview With

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

INTERVIEWS

ing very powerful and very dangerous forces within American society. Forces of resentment, and forces of hatred. And the groundwork for that Tea Party summer of 2009 was all laid by McCain picking Sarah Palin in 2008. There was a lot of this anti-Muslim bigotry apparent at those rallies… it was all there for people to see if they wanted to see it. And Republicans stoked those forces to reap electoral gains. And as Democrats watching this happen, we’ve always had this [skepticism]. Look, John Boehner was swept into the majority speaker’s position, and John Boehner is a country club, classic, elite Republican. But he rode this force to power that’s kind of the opposite of that. It is working class resentment-based hatred of all things Obama. And so for years, starting with the debt ceiling crisis of 2011, we’ve been fascinated by this. These two things do not—cannot peacefully coexist… and [we’ve been wondering] what’s going to happen? How do leaders like Boehner stoke these forces on one hand and then try to get these guys to govern responsibly on the other? And that was the big question—were they ever going to be able to take that blunt force, and use it to achieve more rational policy goals? And after the 2014 election, everybody felt like the Republican establishment had achieved this difficult balancing act and had somehow managed to get the collar around the Tea Party and had managed to use them to win political victories but then keep them at bay when necessary. And that’s turned out to not be true. I think there’s an unavoidable schism because, first of all, Trump’s here to stay; he’s not going anywhere, [and even] if the establishment is somehow able to wrest the nomination from him, either by Rubio having some kind of incredible comeback or by a brokered convention, he’s not going anywhere. He’s just going to run as an independent and take 20% of the vote from the party leader. I read a story on the way over here that Rubio’s getting his top supporters tomorrow to explain how he’s going to take his fight all the way to the convention. I mean, that’s great for Rubio, but it’s also a fool’s er-

rand, because if Trump continues to win, he actually has a completely legitimate claim to the nomination because he won it according to the rules set by the party. But also, all Rubio’s saying is that [he’s creating] an 8-month civil war from now until the election. That means that you’re going to have an ongoing war between the GOP establishment and the Trump wing of the party. I’ve always thought that the Republican Party for a long time has been floating itself along on this, you know, sea of resentment and anger. And that was kind of the truth… that’s the modern Republican Party the way it is. But a lot of Republicans, especially establishment Republicans, would push back on that idea and say, “We’re not. We’re modern, we’re cosmopolitan, we’re not racist,” and if Trump becomes their standard-bearer, there’s going to be an incredible incentive for a faction of the party to say, “This isn’t who we are.” And it’s a question of survival not just for the party in the 2016 election but also if they continue beyond that to be a viable second party in America. And I think it’ll become a point of intellectual pride and distinction for a lot of Republicans to say, “I don’t support Trump.” They’re going to say, “We have to look out for our party’s potential.” They might just say that 2016 is over. That stinks, but you have to cut your losses and focus on keeping the party intact for 2018, when the Senate map is very bad for Democrats, and they have a chance at creating a lot of losses. You know, they might just focus on the [Supreme Court] nomination part of the Hillary Clinton administration. So I think there’s a big schism coming, and the best they can hope for is to kind of mitigate their losses. But there’s a lot who say in Democratic circles [not to] underestimate Trump. You know, there’s a middle ground of people who we shouldn’t be arrogant about and assume we’re going to win, but there is a pretty good chance. If you’re a Republican, you have got to be nervous right now and be assuming that the guy is going to lose in a general election campaign.

I think there’s a break coming. I think that we have seen it on the Hill, because what we’ve seen since the 2010 midterms was Republican leaders stoking very powerful and very dangerous forces within American society.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Crafting A Nuclear Deal

An Interview With

Wendy Sherman Wendy Sherman served as the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Obama Administration. In that capacity, she was the lead U.S. negotiator on the Iran nuclear deal.

By Alison Huang

DPR: Republican presidential candidates like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have openly stated they would nullify the Iranian deal their first day in office. If one of them was sitting here right now, what would you emphasize to them? WS: This deal is not about trust. It’s about monitoring and verification. If Iran complies with the deal and their program is verified to be exclusively peaceful, I think over time people, who may be skeptical now, will see the merits. I understand everybody’s skepticism; Iran does many nefarious things in the world. Of course, they were trying to at one point pursue getting a nuclear weapon, so I understand the skepticism. The proof is whether in fact we continue to have a verifiable exclusively peaceful nuclear Iran. Whoever is the next president, that’s what I think they’ll have to judge. DPR: One of the more contested parts of the deal is the concession of a limited nuclear plan to Iran. What was the process required to work this part into the deal? Considering all the doubts placed on it, how do you foresee this element materializing as the implementation plays out? WS: We were negotiating this deal for two years, and even before that, when Ahmadinejad was the president of Iran, we had two years of negotiations that went nowhere. These negotiations, which ended up with first the Joint Plan of Action and then the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, required a two-year process. So yes, there was

a lot of hammering out. There were a lot of details to go through, and in the end Iran was allowed to have a limited enrichment program. Now the reason for that is because Iran knew how to do what it knew how to do. Even if we bombed away their program, they could recreate it; they had the knowledge. They would likely then recreate it underground and covertly, so that wasn’t a much better option. Of course, we all would have liked to have seen Iran get rid of their nuclear program completely—no question about it. That just wasn’t an available option to get a deal, and I know that some people argued, “If you had just been tougher. They needed this deal more than we did.” Well, they did need it very badly which is why we ended up with only 5,000 centrifuges, why we ended up with only 3.67% enriched uranium, why we ended up with only a 300 kilogram stockpile. All of those things would ensure that Iran wouldn’t be able to produce a nuclear weapon. This is all in conjunction with a verification-monitoring regime that is unlike any that has existed in the world; it is incredibly intrusive. We will see whether in fact Iran complies. Again, this deal is not about trust; it’s about intense monitoring and verification. DPR: How do you see the verification and monitoring process playing out in it’s early stages? WS: The reason why the agreement is so long is because of all the details outlining this process and hammering them out and including them in the negotiation document SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

INTERVIEWS

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

Crafting A Nuclear Deal

An Interview With

Wendy Sherman Wendy Sherman served as the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Obama Administration. In that capacity, she was the lead U.S. negotiator on the Iran nuclear deal.

By Alison Huang

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

INTERVIEWS

America. That’s what’s playing at the table. DPR: How did you build your rapport with your Iranian counterparts during the negotiation process? WS: Over time. We spent so many hours with each other, we came to know each other. That’s not to say we came to trust each other. But I became a grandmother during these negotiations, and Abbas Araghchi became a grandfather, and Secretary Kerry had grandchildren, so we would all share videos of our grandkids in lighter moments. We got invited into their dining room, had great Persian chicken. Of course, we were usually in different dining rooms because ours had alcohol in it. So we had moments like that, but at the negotiating table, we were representing our countries’ interests, so it wasn’t about those moments of trust. I would hope that getting to know each other meant we became committed to solving this problem and getting to a solution. We still have a long way to go.

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Then the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA) operationalized them all. We just had Implementation Day in January when the IAEA verified that Iran had taken all the initial steps that it was required to do: reducing the stockpile, reducing the number of centrifuges, getting down to 3.67%, putting all the 24/7 details in place, electronic seals, video, on and on and on. All of those details have been agreed upon; they are all in place. The IAEA will now be periodically reporting to the Board of Governors of the IAEA and to the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the P5+1 plus the EU plus Iran, whether in fact they’re complying. DPR: What message do you think this deal sent in regard to our stance on Iran’s poor human rights track record? Do you think this new deal changes anyone’s perspective on America’s approach to preventing nuclear proliferation? WS: We left all of the sanctions on human rights, on state sponsorship of terrorism, arms trafficking, all of those sanctions remain in place. The United States was very clear; we are not lifting those sanctions, we are only lifting nuclear related sanctions. We were very clear to the Iranians that we thought that all of these things that they were doing were horrible and that we would enforce

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

our sanctions and international sanctions as well. I don’t think there’s going to be any fundamental change in the US-Iranian relationship. We do now have a channel of communication and that is very valuable. We saw that as valuable when the sailors were taken the other day, we saw that as valuable when we got most of our American citizens home with the exception of Robert Levinson, who we still don’t have an answer for but are working on. We have a channel of communication so that when things are going wrong, we can pick up the phone and have a conversation. That is a plus, but I don’t anticipate normalization of our relationship any time soon. Iran is still a bad actor. DPR: If you don’t mind me asking, during negotiations, were you one of the few females present? WS: I don’t mind you asking at all. In fact, the two people who spent the most time with the lead Iranian negotiators just below the foreign ministers were two women: Helga Schmid, who is the deputy minister to the high representative of the EU, and me. Abbas Araghchi and Majid Takht-Ravanchi, who were Foreign Minister Zarif ’s deputies, most often sat across from the table from Helga Schmid and me, two women. One of the things that I think everybody needs to understand is when you sit at a negotiating table, you’re not there as Wendy Sherman; you’re there as the United States of

would’ve said, “You’ve got to be crazy.” You just never know where life will take you, that’s the exciting part. I would urge young people to get a really good skillset that is transferrable to different problem-solving situations. Go with your passion and really extraordinary privileges will come your way. The Iran nuclear negotiation was, I’m sure, the hardest thing I’ll ever do in my professional career. It was an honor and a privilege to have had the opportunity to do it. DPR: What advice would you give to young females who have set their sights on careers like yours? WS: I would say just have confidence in yourself. Create a support group; I’ve never been in a job where I didn’t have a group of women I could go to when I thought I was losing my mind, who I could go get a drink with, who I could bitch, moan, and complain to. Don’t doubt yourself. If you are strong and tough, you will be called a lot of things you would rather not be called. You won’t die of it, so go forward. Understand that there are a lot of, as Senator Mikulski would call them, “galahads” out there, guys out there who are fantastic colleagues. Make sure you build those relationships as well. Don’t hold yourself back. When I’m giving a lecture, and there’s a Q&A session, almost without a doubt the first four questions will be from guys. After those, I always say, “I’m not taking another question until one of the women in this room raises their hand and asks a question, because you have valuable things to say.” I think it’s very important for women to pass it forward and help other women. Madeleine Albright has a great phrase, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” I’ve been called a lot of things, like tough and aggressive and some other words I won’t use. I’ve probably not gotten opportunities because I was a woman who wasn’t “due” for the part. There are glass ceilings that people of my generation and women before me have broken. I’ve got a daughter who is an asylum and immigration non-profit lawyer, very committed and dedicated. I think it is quite critical that every generation keep going because things are better, but they’re not done. There’s still a long way to go. I would urge every woman to keep splintering and breaking those glass ceilings.

I would urge young people to get a really good skillset that is transferrable to different prblem-solving situations. Go with your passions and extraordinary privileges will come your way.

DPR: Why did you pursue a career in public service? WS: I didn’t begin in national security and foreign policy, I began as a social worker and a community organizer. I first worked with children and was the director of child welfare in the state of Maryland. I ended up getting involved in politics and ran the campaign for Barbara Mikulski to become the first female Democratic senator elected in her own right. I ultimately helped Madeleine Albright become the first female Secretary of State, and I became the first female Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. I just tease that my caseload has changed over time but I think the skill set that I got as a social worker has been immensely helpful to me in my career. I had parents who were activists in the Civil Rights Movement, and I grew up in the Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Movement, the movement against the Vietnam war. Trying to solve problems has been what I learned from my parents. DPR: What advice would you give a young person who hopes to follow a similar path? WS: I tell young people don’t have a 5-year plan or you’ll miss opportunities. If you had asked me when I was a freshman like you that this is what I would be doing, I

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

INTERVIEWS

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

SPRING 2016

I would urge young people to get a really good skillset that is transferrable to different prblem-solving situations. Go with your passions and extraordinary privileges will come your way.

SPRING 2016

DUKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ALREADY READ THIS COVER TO COVER? Check out more at dukepoliticalreview.org