The Election Guidebook: Divided States of America by GEN-ZiNE

COVER by maddy

The Election Guidebook: Divided States of America

07 15 21 28 33 41

CONTENT Letter from the Editors

Welcome to the Election Guidebook. By Anushka Joshi, Sam Gibbs and Eden Burkow

Our Current State, What’s at Stake?

How did we get here, and where do we go from here? By Tajwar Khandaker

Political Polarization

To be one is to reject the other. By Jack Bekos

A Man Accused of Sexual Assult will be our President

No matter the outcome, this is our reality. By Elisabeth Foster

COVID-19: The Government in a New Light

Warning, In Danger Of Collapse: Voter Turnout, The Economy, and Trump’s Re-Election Chances. By Zac Emanuel Global Empathy The vaccine for the 21st Century. By Arya Bhatia

Your Silence Aids and Abets Violent Oppression This article was written in light of George Floyd’s murder – but the sentiment remains time and time again. When will this change? By Abeer Tijani

Madame President

Too taboo, the taboo two: religion & politics. By Eden Burkow

Is the United States ready for a female president? By Sami Rosenblatt

The Privatized Public Opinion: Civic Literacy and Media Literacy

The American Biathlon: How Political Campaigns are Run

By Nikki Cohen

So you think you can be president? By Zac Emanuel

Not Your Baker’s Dough: Money in Our Electoral Process Money talks. By Zac Emanuel

08 19 26 31 38 45

48 52 58 64 69 79

Election Interference & Political Disruption American citizens are not the only ones who vote in elections. By Chloe Hirth

Courting Misfortune

How your vote affects the court system. By Arjun Joshi

A Vote for Trans Women's Rights

A case study on the impacts of the Supreme Court. By Gia Ariola

Trump v Biden Debate

Republicans are red, democrats are blue, By Nikki Cohen, Dani Miles, Katie Abrams, Anushka Joshi, Eden Burkow, Katie Stone and Commit2Eight

The Electoral College Which votes matter? By Reeve Berlinberg

Voter Suppression

The Importance of Local Elections National politics equals culture. Local politics equal action. By Katie Abrams

The privilege of a vote. By Sequoia Smith

Why Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m Voting for Trump And so should you! By Nate Odenkirk

Voting and Organizing Toolkit How to get you and your friends to the polls. By Nikki Cohen and Chloe Keywell

From the Sidelines to the Field How to Go from Advocating and Protesting to Working for Candidates YOU Believe In. By Zac Emanuel

Is There Still Room for Hope? A look into the future. By Michelle Austreich.

Afterword A closing note. By Anushka Joshi

51 54 60 68 76 84

The Election Guidebook: Divided States of America Fall 2020 EDITORIAL TEAM Anushka Joshi Madison Ledger Zac Emanuel Eden Burkow Sam Gibbs Nikki Cohen Blaire Goldberg

Editor in Chief Creative Director Politics Editor Community Editor Story Editor Culture Editor Social Coordinator

AUTHORS

Tajwar Khandaker Jack Bekos Elisabeth Foster Zac Emanuel Arya Bhatia Abeer Tijani Sami Rosenblatt Nikki Cohen Katie Stone

Chloe Hirth Arjun Joshi Gia Ariola Dani Miles Katie Abrams Reeve Berlinberg Berlinger Reeve Sequoia Smith Nate Odenkirk Michelle Austreich

ARTISTS

Madison Ledger Nicole Klein Chloe Keywell Kate Bowling Dani Miles

Sadie Paczosa Emma Lam Isabelle Lemiuex Anam Faruqi Aaron Colodne

REACH US WWW.GEN-ZiNE.COM @thegenzine thegenzine@gmail.com

Letter From The Editors To Our Readers, Welcome to “The Election Guidebook: Divided States of America.” We created this issue in light of the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election. And though its title is rooted in the divisive nature of our country, it is not meant with pessimism. The goal of this issue is to redefine the American Dream– we are better together. As always, GEN-ZiNE strives to cultivate community, compassion, curiosity, and critical thought within the members of our generation. We know that not everyone will turn to public service or office as their line of work– but it is possible to enact change wherever you are, and it starts here with you. Generation Z has been raised in a post 9/11 world, riddled with fear, anxiety, and extreme surveillance. We grew up too quickly, losing our peers to frequent mass shootings at school. We have come of age during Donald Trump’s presidency where bigotry, sexism, racism, and hatred were publicly normalized and redefined the perception of America. And all the while, the threat of climate change looms overhead. These are the moments that defined the formative years for our generation. They have shaped the way we approach and perceive the world. We know how to raise our voices and make noise, we know how to advocate for the issues we care about, and we know how to stand up for what we believe in. We have witnessed the Parkland survivors lead a movement for gun safety. We have protested for racial justice. The face of climate activism is a 17-year-old girl. We have turned our pain into purpose, and that is our biggest inspiration. We’ve been on the front lines before– but will we show up when we are called to this new battleground? We are at an intersection in time where old order splits into a new order– what will we create?

As many of us are eligible to vote for the first time, in fact, 24 MILLION Gen Z’ers are eligible to vote– it is time for us to mobilize and be more informed now than ever before. This issue of GEN-ZiNE documents history. It documents how tenacious we were to make a change and elect the future that we want to see and be a part of. This zine is an educational tool, with its lessons being taught peer to peer. We’ve come together to discuss and understand our governmental system, the constituents of America, and how we can do our part to get our ballots to the mailbox. #SaveThePostOffice. In a world filled with so much hatred, divisiveness, chaos, and trauma, it’s easy to want to give up. To succumb to deep–rooted history. To ask, “does my vote even matter?” But progress and change do not happen overnight (though I hope it will on November 3rd). It is a slow burn, but we can create the world that we want to live in–and that we want future generations to live in. But above all, civics is love. And it comes from a place of hope, community, and the search for something greater than thyself. The push to November 3rd is just the start of our journey as engaged citizens. The permanence of civic engagement is a part of our DNA, not a one– time thing. This is the greatest inflection point for both our nation and for ourselves. In our late teens and early twenties we constantly ask ourselves, “who am I, who do I want to become, and why am I here?” In a society riddled with individualism, I implore you to take a step back and to not just consider, but to act upon our greater community– America’s future. Systemic change is a habit that we must inaugurate into our lives starting with this upcoming election. Let the energy that surrounds your hopes and your dreams, your fears, and your anxieties channel into a single starting point– your vote.

See you at the polls–

Anushka, Eden, Sam

Our Current State, What’s at Stake?

How did we get here, and where do we go? by tajwar khandaker

A bizarre election, in a bizarre year, led to the presidency of Donald Trump in a moment that signaled the start to one of the wildest experiments in American history. Despite the abundance of confident punditry and forecasting that followed election night in 2016, it seems as though no one got it right–not completely at least. Those that expected the 70-year-old “Apprentice” star to embrace something resembling the “normal” role of President and shed his campaign persona were sorely mistaken. So were those who saw Trump as a Washington outsider who would “drain the swamp” and represent the “forgotten majority” in the White House. Some underestimated his anger and his impulsiveness; others overestimated his interest in upholding the duties of the office. What America has come to learn–and probably should have understood long ago– is that Trump has always been exactly the man he comes off as being. There is no deeper layer, no higher motive, no calculated grand plan. The President has proven to be every bit as underqualified for the post as his campaign indicated; his first term has produced an inexhaustible array of scandals, the most broken congressional inter–party relations in recent memory, and contributed to the mismanagement of the worst national health crisis in nearly a century. Norms and systems established over centuries by politicians, statesmen, and experts have been discarded. The decorum of the American government is in disrepair, both in the eyes of its people and those of the world. It now feels like an act of providence when we see the President handle something as mundane as a bill signing instead of dropping rap–battle threats against foreign leaders on Twitter. The bar has been lowered beyond recognition. As we approach November, we cautiously await the American people’s referendum on the Trump experiment. It is a mistake, however, to make this election entirely about him–none of this has ever been entirely about him. It’s about a deeply rooted mistrust of government, of decades of growing resentment against establishment politicians who seem to fail to grasp the needs of the American people. It’s about a country with such a complicated national identity that its own citizens can’t reconcile their competing perceptions of what America stands for with one another. It’s about a litany of other things: education, immigration, privacy, on and on. The path that led to Trump was paved with stones left over decades, by everyone from senators and Presidents to judges and newspaper editors. The erosion of “American Values” that so many have decried over the past for years was not conjured out of thin air by Donald Trump–it was the inevitable endpoint of the course America has trodden for the last half–century. Those values– democracy, equality, justice–have been preached loudly by the United States across the world for decades, often at gunpoint. Yet at home, our maintenance of these ideals has been in disrepair. America’s once–thriving middle class has shrunk rapidly, as rising costs of living, stagnant wage growth, and ramshackle healthcare have crippled socioeconomic mobility for tens of millions of Americans. A flawed and overburdened criminal justice system has exacerbated the plight of communities across America, disproportionally harming minority populations. Voter suppression still silences millions in what is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy. So, it was no surprise that Americans on opposite sides of the nation, opposing ends of the political spectrum, and of every race and ethnicity grew tired–a reality that in 2016 manifested in the form of two wildly different Presidential candidates. Bernie Sanders

and Donald Trump were dramatically opposed, both in their platforms and ideologies. Sanders’ brand of progressive politics had remained practically the same since his entry into government nearly 40 years ago– well to the left of the establishment of the Democrat party. Trump’s right–wing tendencies, on the other hand, were reminiscent of Tea Party rhetoric during the Obama years, entrenching the Republican party further in a fiery and often nasty nationalistic position. Americans unhappy with the status quo and establishment politics flocked to both candidates in 2016–mostly young, multicultural, progressive voters for Sanders against an older, more right–wing, and decidedly whiter base for Trump. Both candidates, despite their drastically different directions, tapped into the sea of discontent across the country–evidenced by their successes amongst working–class voters. However, in 2016, Hilary Clinton’s nomination and the subsequent campaign would overlook these realities. Her platform appeared mostly an appeal to voters to continue the Obama years, offering little in the way of the bold new policy. At times, it seemed as though the Clinton campaign’s central argument was simply that she was not Donald Trump. There was no great vision the candidate set forth, no rallying cry like Obama’s “Hope” for the masses to gather around. The lack of inspirational direction was an issue for the campaign all the way through, as enthusiasm lagged among young and undecided voters. Her message failed to move the voters of the Rust Belt and of the traditionally Democrat “Blue Wall” of northern states–areas where she had unexpectedly lost primary races to Sanders. The results were catastrophic; not only would Clinton fail to secure a victory in Ohio or Pennsylvania, but Michigan and Wisconsin would also turn red for the first time in decades on Donald Trump’s road to victory. Many of the working–and–middle class Americans who voted for him–mostly white–saw it as a gamble. Much of Middle–America was willing to overlook the long list of obvious problems with the candidate because they clung to the hope that regardless, he was still the first unique option presented to them in a very long time. Trump represented to these voters an outside presence willing to rip up the snooty club of the Washington elite– the same who had failed to deliver on promises for decades. Election night came, and the Democrats were stunned. Despite winning the popular vote, Clinton lost badly in the electoral college. Though his margins were razor–thin in many key states, Trump’s victory was resounding.

Much of Middle–America was willing to overlook the long list of obvious problems with the candidate because they clung to the hope that regardless, Ęü ƏÓū ūųěıı ųĘü ƥťūų ŸĹěŤŸü ŃŢųěŃĹ ŢťüūüĹųüö ųŃ ųĘüĸ ěĹ Ó Ǝüťƕ ıŃĹĒ ųěĸüǄ Four years later, America looks dramatically different on the eve of the election. The severity and breadth of the COVID–19 pandemic has forced the world to grind to a halt, with the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression and a degree of worldwide crisis not seen since the last World War. The United States, under the leadership of President Trump, has unflatteringly bungled the situation, failing to institute any kind of coherent national policy to counter the pandemic. While many of America’s peers abroad have managed to control the spread of the virus to varying degrees, the United States itself has been woefully inept in its response– resulting in bans in many countries on the entry of American visitors. Meanwhile, the administration has been repeatedly dismissing the danger posed by the virus and disputing official numbers. As American deaths continue to mount at a frightening pace, Trump’s chances in the election continue to take a tremendous hit. Though a concerning number of Americans seem to be dismissive of the virus, nearly two–thirds of the country believe that other nations have handled the crisis better than the United States– including 57% of Republicans. As Republicans across the board have started to take the coronavirus more seriously in recent weeks, Trump has been forced to show more concern, even though the President still claims that the U.S. is doing a good job handling the issue. One way or another, it looks as though it will be too little, too late for Trump. Holding onto his electoral gains from 2016, on paper, seems a tremendous challenge. Trump has taken significant losses among independent voters and many centrist Republicans, while his new gains look limited. For working–class swing voters little has changed for the better during Trump’s presidency. His economic policies, particularly the series of tariffs, have hurt industries such as agriculture and steel. His attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act also went over poorly with working–class voters, as did his tax cuts which disproportionately favored corporations and the wealthy. Consequently,

art by isabelle lemieux

Trump is in very real danger of hemorrhaging votes in states that were crucial to his victory four years ago. Current polling backs up the hypothesis– Biden holds a healthy margin against the President in many key states from Pennsylvania and Michigan to Florida and possibly even Texas. But so did Hillary Clinton at this time four years ago, and she lost.

Biden’s numbers are better than Clinton’s were, and his chances are certainly strong, but his campaign will have to grapple with many of the same problems that torpedoed that of his predecessor. Clinton’s lack of a strong ideological message (other than being an anti– Trump) was a drag on her campaign; the same could easily be said about the Joe Biden campaign in the present. The lack of pro-activity and initiative shown by the Biden campaign thus far indicates that the candidate is content with sitting on the sidelines for the time being while Trump punches himself out. Ideally, the former vice–President will remain unscathed, able to emerge clean for election day having avoided the brunt of public pressure. However, Biden’s candidacy has too

many issues of its own to avoid scrutiny, much as he may like it to. Questions around his age and health are inevitable, as are those about the sexual misconduct allegations directed toward him over the last year. Of course, the platform itself is a matter of concern to many as well. Biden is a traditionally “safe” candidate, sure to appeal to centrist Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independent voters, but the Vice President’s policy proposals do not go far enough for many. As a result, the Biden camp has made moves to incorporate progressive policy into a platform that was once establishment vanilla in recent months creating a Unity Plan with Bernie Sanders and integrating some of Elizabeth Warren’s proposals with his own. Many of the possible fruits of these decisions are promising– universal childcare, stronger environmental legislation, and a tax rise for the wealthy. However, in declining to endorse a Green New Deal or Medicare for All, even in the wake of the current health crisis, Biden continues to alienate many of his skeptics on the left. Similarly, the former Vice President’s response to the events in Minneapolis and Kenosha, and their fallout, has been unsatisfactory to many, lacking the kind of decisive promise for action that many hoped for. Many

progressives see Biden’s candidacy a hollow promise, an engine willing to go only so far as re-instituting the pre-Trump “normal.” For millions across the country, that normal was never sufficient. During the Democratic Convention, there was a concentrated effort to cater to that concern, with the endless repetition of the promise to “Build Back Better.” Whether or not voters buy it is another matter. The discontent of millions requires more than some alliteration to solve. The Democrats have long bemoaned the leadership vacuum with Donald Trump in the Oval Office; Biden has an opportunity to start filling that void by being present and vocal now. The DNC was a strong first step in that direction, as the former Vice President offered perhaps the best speech of his career accepting his nomination for the candidacy. Biden cast himself in a Presidential light his campaign hadn’t managed to conjure until the convention– speaking clearly and assertively, ostensibly leading from the pulpit. This was essential for a candidate that had long been painted as too old, too addle–minded, too out of touch. The people needed to see him not only campaigning but leading, with a clear theme for the future he proposed. Biden delivered at long last, projecting an image of leadership, accountability, and competence for his potential administration, though the lack of policy in his speech remained concerning. His choice of Kamala Harris as his running mate the prior week may have been an equally significant moment in the timeline of the campaign. The junior senator from California offers an incredibly mixed bag for critics and supporters to pick through, as often–justified criticisms of her record as California Attorney General mar her image to many, despite her strong political skillset, prosecutorial success, and status as potentially the first woman (of Black and Indian heritage no less) to be Vice President. Harris is a politician’s politician; shrewd, smart, and often hard to trust. The selection carries more weight than most; there are strong indications that Biden plans upon being only a single–term President. As a result, Harris’ selection is not only for the role of VP but perhaps by extension for the Presidential candidacy in 2024. The Harris–Biden union offers a well–rounded ticket to voters– a white man and a woman of color, experience and energy, the empathy of an elder statesman, and

the zeal of a young prosecutor. With his Vice President in tow, it is time for the Biden campaign to lock in and push for the remaining days of the race. Doing so successfully involves leaving behind the complacency the Democrats showed in 2016 when they assumed they could pull off the victory despite the discontent of many potential voters. Biden cannot make the same mistakes. The voters of the Rust Belt and the Blue Wall will need answers to their concerns– Biden will have to address them in a way that Clinton did not. There is a large pool of potential voters available to pull upon for the cause of defeating Donald Trump. It behooves the Biden camp to ensure that they’ve properly appealed to all of them rather than a select few. Much like Clinton, Biden may find it challenging to get people out to vote, a result of both lacking enthusiasm for his campaign and overconfidence in the result by potential voters. Biden’s ability to draw voters to the election is even more important than it already would be due to the apparent instability of the voting process in November. With the coronavirus still raging across much of the country, conducting normal in–person voting seems highly inadvisable, if not impossible, and states and local governments are scrambling to establish functional protocols and systems for carrying out the election. The chaos is stoked by the executive branch’s intentional hindrance of vote–by–mail practices across the country, as Trump publicly and regularly declares that mailed votes will lead to a stolen election. Vote– by–mail undoubtedly has logistical challenges, but it’s been a part of the election process for years in many parts of the country. No evidence shows higher risks of voter fraud with mail–in voting, and many regions that use it have seen better voter turnout. The fight over the voting process will take place both in Washington and in lower levels of government across the country. The result will likely be a patchwork system of voting nationwide, with some regions voting exclusively by mail, some in person, and some with a combination. It’s still hard to gauge what turnout will look like in November, but the idea that the more people vote, the better Biden’s odds will be, is a popular one. The President, hellbent on restricting mail–in voting, believes this himself. Although this had been pretty clear to most observers for months, Trump made sure to put it in words himself. In early August, the President admitted to withholding

USPS funding for that reason, proudly declaring “They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots [...] If they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail–in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.” The battle for the ballot box will be crucial to the story of this election, and there isn’t much time for it to be resolved. Some hope lies in the fact that more and more politicians, many of them Republican, publicly break with Trump over his attempt to slow mail–in voting as every week passes. After all– senators, governors, and local legislators, Democrat and Republican, all need their voters to turn out too. Uncertainty colors all things in the present, but that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be President of the United States in January is inevitable. It may not be an enjoyable prospect, or perhaps even a tolerable one for many, but it is our reality. The widespread distaste for Biden and the establishment of his party is to be expected. Biden’s nomination once again showed the Democratic Party’s disdain for its progressive wing– as did their handling of Bernie Sanders in 2016. Biden has made overtures to those on the left, offering a pledge of cooperation with Sanders and Warren, and seemingly making an effort to integrate parts of their platforms into his. Whether or not these are sincere remains to be seen. For now, the left’s best hope is to propel Biden to a victory and ensure that they have a seat at the table in doing so. The party will soon have to reckon with its treatment of the progressives as they continue to win elections and gain bigger platforms– the establishment Democrat party cannot continue to evade and reject them as they have for much longer. In the present, the election looms, and the reality remains a world where either Donald Trump represents the United States for four more years, or Joe Biden does. Americans will need to decide which of the two they prefer– and their decision will reflect profoundly on what this country is and what it wants to be. The President has threatened to invalidate November’s results (he can’t, but he can certainly make things messy), Russia and possibly other nations actively look to play a role in swaying the election, and COVID–19 continues to cast its shadow over everything we do. The American people will face no shortage of obstacles when they try to prove that their democracy works in November.

Nonetheless, there is so much change that needs to be done that it remains essential. American foreign policy is in tatters; tensions with Iran are escalating, our partnerships in Europe falter, and relations with China worsen with each passing day. At home, social injustices abound, the financial disparity grows, and millions don’t know how they will make it through the ongoing pandemic. And across the globe, we continue to watch environmental damage mount ceaselessly towards disaster. The list of the issues America faces today is much longer still, and voting one way or the other likely won’t solve most of them. It will, however, allow us to choose the way we go about trying, and that is worth something. There are many things to be done in this country, and many of them will be done by protestors, by organizers, by teachers, and by writers. Not all change comes from the ballot box– but much of it still does. In less than 50 days, America will make a decision about what kind of country it wants to be. The fork in the road right now only runs two ways. Both might end in disaster– but one almost certainly does.

THIS IS AMERICA

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

Current State & General Government Beliefs What we have to say: Sentiments about the Current State

Our values are not represented by this administration. We feel that there is a lack of leadership, polarization beyond repair, and a blatant disregard for compassion and empathy. There is no common goal we can meet on.

Unfortunately, I mostly do feel like I am “represented.” I was born into an upper-class white home in Beverly Hills, and this current administration is technically representing things that are, on paper, good for my family and I. I have to recognize that part of the reason why we got to this moment in time is that there are families like mine who don’t think of their vote as serving those who have less than them. What this government does NOT represent are my beliefs, nor my values, nor anybody but upper-class white people. Jackson Prince

Not only does our administration ignore the needs of communities of color, it prioritizes enabling the systems of oppression that disproportionately affect BIPOC communities. Vidya Muthupillai

As a constituent, do you feel represented by this administration? YES NO

11.3%

YES NO

88.7%

Our current state of government is representative of the top 1% of this country. The only thing this administration cares about is money and helping the rich get richer. Donald Trump, I think we all know is the epitome of this, but we need to look deeper to uncover the roots of these issues. Tommy King

I say no because the Republican and Democratic party are just two sides of the same coin, in my opinion. I don’t think the values I would like the government to represent are present at all in either of these administrations. I feel with the current state there is no opportunity for any middle ground or compromise which are two very important things that every politician should place an emphasis on. I don’t see any real leadership in this government, just authority that has been bought. Stevie Terando

NO YES

66.7%

Do these values align with what you want your country to represent? YES NO

33.3%

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

Nationalism, Reclaim the Flag! America’s undying patriotism has become a self-sabotaging weapon, and has hindered our ability to grow and evolve as a country.

Here’s what we have to say:

Nationalism... ...is a perversion off patriotism that can see no wrong

...mutes straying from the status quo and new perspectives

... has decreased in my life as I’ve aged Nationalism prevents people from having a worldly perspective. It also prevents certain individuals from acknowledging our nations flaws. Personally, I am very proud of my country and am grateful to live here. I look at other nations and understand where we stand. The problem is, I am able to see where we fall short of our goals as a country, while others can’t. Growing up in south Orange Country has shown me that so many people refuse to leave the bubble of privilege provided to them, tuning out the real problems America faces.

Anam Faruqi

...causes polarization …cloaks reality I also find it deeply disturbing that when an American complains/critics United States policies, the initial response from the opposing party is “then leave.” No one should have to leave their home, family, and friends because they find policies harmful. As Americans, people have a right to question/protest against their government. Politicians, especially the President, should evaluate the policies in question and see how to amend these policies to create a better governed society.

Nationalism stands in the way of progress because it promotes the idea that we already are perfect and don’t need anyone else. These ideas feed into the xenophobia and isolationism that have led America to reject its immigrant heritage and global leadership. In my personal life, it has led to a struggle to define American: what does it mean to be American? White? Speak English? Middle class?

Vidya Muthupillai Nationalism is something I believe in because as the child of immigrants who had to escape their country, the benefit of being in a “free” country pushes me to be appreciative for the opportunity I have. Anonymous

Izzy Gatti Many liberal individuals see nationalism as strictly a republican ideal that revolves around a patriotic spirit that yearns for freedom and individualism in a selfish way. However, I think that America is a beautiful place composed of beautiful people that benefits from advanced technology, businesses, infrastructure, and human intelligence. I want to be able to be a nationalist that has pride in my country, a country that brings such a diverse community together in pursuit of societal advancement.

Payton Hansen

We are taught from an early age to be proud of our country and the things that our country represents. We are taught to say the pledge of allegiance, we are taught that we live in “the best country on earth”, we are taught that dropping atomic bombs on millions of civilians was the right call for military victory, we are taught that Cowboys are more righteous than Indians, we are taught that white lives mean more than black lives, all in the name of America. I am proud to be a part of the generation upending the nationalist ideals that have led to the disgraceful actions of this administration and generations before. Nationalism at its core is a form of brainwashing and a form of suppressing free speech. For a country that, in its constitution, guarantees the right to free speech, we are taught that anything said against the state, particularly in this administration, is blasphemous and punishable by social scrutiny, undercover police violence, and more.

Tommy King

Political Polarization To be one is to reject the other by jack bekos

What has propelled this divide to such extreme proportions? The answer lies in the simple fact that Gen Z has been plunged into the era of the Internet ever since the comfort of the crib. We have grown up in a media–obsessed culture that has exposed us to terrorism, school shootings and financial crises. Never did we have to ask someone for information or directions. Instead, the unlimited information on our iPads and Macbooks meant relying on the Internet to form opinions and attitudes. As such, Gen Z has become one of the most individualistic generations ever, with beliefs that often discount the greater whole of society. This individualism has sparked fierceness in political leaning. Validation and confirmation of beliefs can be easily searched and found online and across social media, creating a dangerous battleground for political disagreement. I first saw hints of this polarization in high school, during the turbulence of the 2016 Presidential election. It’s important to preface that Wisconsin as a state is both politically and electorally unpredictable. Regardless, the outcome of the election elated some and shocked others. What shocked me was the way social media

played a role in the self–confirmation of political beliefs. Posts on Instagram ranged from honest to downright offensive. The one that sticks in my mind most clearly was a picture of a girl holding an American flag with the simple caption “#RaisedRight.” The comments section abounded with violent discourse. Some praised her invalidation while others challenged her claim as insensitive and inexcusable. Can you see the divide widening?

art by maddy ledger

Surely the Thanksgiving table has never been so different. Above the roasted turkey, mashed potatoes, green beans, cranberry sauce and pumpkin pie is a new addition: the aggressive back–and–forth conversation of a widely divided political system. My climate–change–denying uncle and conservative grandpa take verbal swings at my self–proclaimed socialist aunt and liberal mother. Today’s “liberal” and “conservative” are farther apart than ever. To be one is to reject the other. It once seemed like such division was reserved only for my family’s disgruntled elders. How wrong I was. Political polarization affects my generation on an enormous scale, and I see it as the one issue that will define it for years to come.

This polarization has continued even throughout my college experience, where any mention of political beliefs is met with either vehement agreement or intense rejection. Even in the politically homogenous city of Los Angeles and in the bubble of a university campus, political conversation is frequently avoided. This is not to say that clubs, organizations, and movements alike successfully discuss, argue and posit their political beliefs. Rather, without the certainty of an individual’s political beliefs and opinions, there is a noticeable safety in refraining from such conversation altogether. Social media remains an enduring and persistent threat to any attempts at slowing the rise of political polarization among younger generations. If anyone or anything is to blame, social media must be first and

foremost considered. The way platforms like Twitter, Instagram,o and TikTok have played a role in widening the divide between political parties in America is unprecedented. Individuals on both sides of the aisle are able to quickly post their opinions and attitudes on social media, whether or not the posts are informative, accusatory or contentious. But this is nothing new. In today’s world, what’s new is the way elected officials take jabs at one other via these platforms. Such strikes provide a dangerous example to individuals of all ages who see it as justification to do the same. At the core of such polarization is the President of the United States. One of Donald Trump’s campaign strategies, now and in 2016, is his blatant victimization of others. During his 2016 campaign, he and his advisors exploited immigrants as the greatest enemies of the American people. Calls to “Keep America Safe” and “Build the Wall” dominated his speeches and tweets. Trump ran a campaign that fanned the flames of racial resentment in the United States by aligning himself with prominent white nationalist groups. Many influential studies point to racial resentment and prejudice as the primary explanation for Trump’s unwavering support among white voters. At the core of his campaign strategy is the goal to incite these racially resentful whites. As the world saw, this strategy worked. It is clear that such strategy continues today. While the white nationalist upsurge undoubtedly led to Trump’s election in 2016, scholars argue that such an upsurge was part of a broader wave of reactionary racism that swept across the Western world, reflective of anxieties over globalization, immigration, and cultural diversification. Such a wave of reactionary racism does not exist in 2020. Trump struggles to foster the same nationalist charge that fueled his victory four years ago. In an era of passionate anti–racism across the country, Trump turns instead to the victimization of a more surprising group: his fellow Americans.

The way Trump antagonizes his liberal opposition has never changed. For years he has called his opponents evil, criminal, crooked and radical. The way Trump vilely classifies those who oppose him is unprecedented in modern American politics. As Trump promotes out– group hostility, so too do his followers resent the other. Trump and his followers survive off of a dangerous form of racial polarization and ethnocentrism. In this view, ingroup attitudes of superiority, preference and loyalty are strongly contrasted with anti–outgroup attitudes of hostility and contempt. To be a Trump supporter is to be hostile towards your opposition. I recently received an unsolicited email from the Trump campaign. The email reads:

“Time and time again, you’ve stood by my side and shown the left that

this is YOUR country, not theirs.”

This is directly from the Donald Trump campaign to its supporters. Trump is using polarizing language with the hopes that it will guarantee his victory as it did in 2016. After all, outgroup hostility was the single most important element in his win. What this means for the future of American politics is up for debate. What we do know for sure is that our polarized state is a failed state; political polarization is a direct cause of the multi– leveled failure in handling the COVID pandemic, the current economic fallout, as well as social upheaval. What Americans are finally seeing is that their powerful polarization isn’t so benign after all. Political polarization is not just an issue that affects those with political aspirations or ambitions. It affects all of us. For a number of reasons, political polarization presents a noticeable threat to this country, particularly to its emerging youth:

art by maddy ledger

1 2 3

Quite a few politicians and theorists have proposed solutions to the problem of polarization in America, but few have looked at the role social media plays in this phenomenon. What can be done to stop the extreme split that is occurring in America, especially online? On a basic level, I encourage respectful political discussion and discourse. I fundamentally believe that such a discussion can begin to bring individuals closer together. And by discussion, I refer almost exclusively to in– person human–to–human discussion. On social media it becomes exceptionally easy to single out individuals or groups with different beliefs without suffering any repercussions. Yet in the real world, healthy debate and conversation can lead to mutual understanding, even if it is an understanding of disagreement, fostering empathy. Regardless, it is clear that strengthening the two– party system we currently have is not going to reduce polarization. Then what’s the answer? Is the creation of a viable third party or centrist movement a solution? Is polarization strictly a national problem? Have Americans reached a consensus on any issues? Many of these questions remain unanswered.

Some organizations have some ideas about this conundrum: to read more, visit uniteamerica.org.

Please research your candidates and elected officials, now and in the upcoming 2020 election. If voting by mail, please submit your votes by October 20.

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

Polarization Our nation is polarized beyond repair, and we feel like we are in a stalemate. Will we ever be able to meet in the middle?

The Road to Unity

Do majority of the people you surround yourself with share the same political beliefs?

Do you see a future with less polarization?

Do you frequently discuss politics with and have access to those you disagree with?

EDUCATE Educate people more. Democrats and republicans want a lot of the same things, but the polarization detracts from the speed of progress. Deanie Chen Increased education and decreased sense of entitlement. Lachlan Woolsey

LISTEN Do you view America as polarized?

Listen before responding. Like I said earlier, people (from what I see on twitter, Facebook, etc) respond simply to respond. No one actually reads what the other person is saying nor do they provide unbiased facts and resources. Izzy Gatti

EMPATHY Actually listen to each other and be more empathetic.. i don’t know. this frustrates me because i want us to all at least be able to connect as human beings if not as “americans” but it seems that the selfish narrative and putting yourself first is way more important than the lives of other people.

INTEGRITY

How we... FEEL

Stressed Hopeless Frustrated Stuck Scared Hostility Anxious Sad

ACT I hate polarization because it is unproductive and no one is willing to have a conversation. I think both ends of the polarization are equally detrimental to society because they both allow for no room for change, no discussion, anger, and are centered around an aggressive attack of the ‘other.’

Nicole Klein

Michelle Austreich

We have to stop debating things that are not up for debate—we need leadership that puts facts first and doesn’t show misinformation everywhere and prey on fear. We have to realize that we have more in common than we don’t. We all want a fair shot at life and for our children to grow up in a safe world.

Vidya Muthupillai Restructure media outlets to incentivize integrity and honesty.

Anonymous

OPENESS By recognizing and respecting the value of human lives over financial gain. Tommy King It takes a willingness to change your beliefs.

Anonymous

A Man Accused of Sexual Assault Will Be Our Next President

No matter the outcome, this is our reality by elisabeth foster It’s time we face the facts: no matter who is elected in the fall, a white male over the age of 65 that has been accused of sexual assault will be our next President. It is with a heavy heart that I encourage our nation to take a step back and acknowledge this reality. I want to be clear – I am not saying whether I believe that either man is guilty or innocent, whether either woman is telling the truth or lying. I am focusing on a concrete fact – they have both been accused. And I believe that this in itself is cause for serious concern. The #MeToo movement swept across our nation with competing priorities – one of disgust and dismay for those in power who continued to abuse their roles to assault women, men and children, and one of hope that we would finally take a stand and stop letting assaulters remain unaccountable. I found the movement empowering; so empowering that I wrote a book detailing my experiences of sexual assault. I put it in writing for the world to see, for my assaulters to see, for myself to see – and that could never be undone. My voice and the voices of so many others can no longer be silenced. That is why acknowledging this fact is so hard for me. When we vote in this election, we are voting for someone

who has been accused of sexual assault. I believe that it is our civic duty to vote, and I will be voting in November (and in the run–off in Texas to come before then). But I still am grappling with the reality of our candidates. Validating either of these men as a candidate puts a dramatic stop to the #MeToo movement. How can we expect Survivors to come forward when our highest leaders, those we democratically elect to Presidential office, are allowed to move past these allegations without so much as a scratch? We have a blip in the news cycle where we acknowledge these accusations and call out for justice, and then we move forward as though nothing has happened. We are emboldening others to brush aside allegations. If a President can get away with such disrespectful and damaging a story, why can’t anyone? Every time a Survivor comes forward, we are emboldened to share our stories and demand more of our neighbors and leaders. And every time a Survivor is ignored, cast aside, or doubted, we are more likely to keep our stories inside. The effect this has on us is great – we ebb and flow. Survivors are one in this regard – attached to our own experiences, but molded together through pain, trauma, healing and the public reaction we watch to each story. The following women have accused President Trump of sexual assault or misconduct: Karen Johnson, E. Jean Carroll, Alva Johnson, Ninni Laaksonen, Jessica Drake, Karena Virginia, Cathy Heller, Summer Servos, Kristin Anderson, Samantha Holvey, Lisa Boyne, Jessica Leeds, Rachel Crooks, Mindy McGillivray, Natasha Stoynoff, Jennifer Murphy, Mariah Billado, Tasha Dixon, Cassandra Searles, Bridget Sullivan, Temple Taggard McDowell, Jill Harth, Ivana Trump, Victoria Hughes.

Tara Reade, Lucy Flores, Ally Coll, Sofie Karasek, Amy Stokes Lappos, Caitlyn Caruso, DJ Hill, and Vail Kornert–Yount have come forward with sexual assault or misconduct allegations against former Vice President Biden.

I am left with an astounding amount of questions. Questions I believe each voter, each citizen of the United States, should consider.

That is a combined 32 women.

Do we live in a nation where despite movements of empowerment and truth, we cast aside flaws for power?

These two men are not the only leaders who have been accused of this injustice. We have also watched as CEOs, Hollywood stars, ordinary Americans and numerous others were accused. The fact is that in America, someone is assaulted every 73 seconds – that’s 11,835 assaults per day. And yet of every 1,000 individuals that are assaulted, only 9 cases get referred to prosecutors, and even less, only 5 are prosecuted. That means only 0.5% of sexual assaulters are prosecuted. The weight of these accusations is great. On the one hand, it challenges us to reassess our values system and call into question where we are as a nation, and on the other it challenges us to look past those actions once the news cycles move on and accept one of these two men as our next leader and chief.

What does this mean about our nation?

Why do we let our political leaders lead if they don’t meet our standards? Does anyone meet our standards? How do we judge these allegations? Do we even have the right to judge these allegations for ourselves? What are the implications of both Presidential candidates being accused of such an unacceptable act? Should we just vote for the candidate we believe to be the lesser of the two evils and move on?

art by nicole klein

The truth is – I don’t think I concretely know the answer to any of these questions. My knowledge on the topic is constantly evolving, and I hope yours is too. I challenge this nation to take a moment just to acknowledge the reality that is. In 2016, we elected a President who was accused of sexual assault. The year 2020 has come around, and it is time to vote again. This time we are faced with a staggering reality – regardless of who we vote for, a man accused of sexual assault will be our next President.

COVID–19: The Government in a New Light Warning, In Danger Of Collapse: Voter Turnout, The Economy, and Trump’s Re–Election Chances by zac emanuel With American Presidential elections happening every 4 years, and the last great pandemic 100 years ago, the odds of both occurring in a given year are minimal. Therefore, the fact that records of voter turnout worldwide from the last great pandemic exist is very fortunate for us. To maximize the available data, we are going to look at both global voting trends and American trends both from a disease standpoint and from an economic fallout standpoint. The COVID–19 crisis has a two–pronged effect on the November ballots for the American Presidency. The first being how the virus itself will affect voters, whether due to fear of infection, or the continued shutdown of our schools. The other prong is the economic crisis that has resulted. Traditional voter turnout modeling, alongside polls on the current handling of the virus, suggests that there will be a wave of incumbent punishment this November.

Pathogen Fear While Americans have been staying home in greater numbers than ever before since the outbreak of COVID–9, the fear of contracting illness in leaving quarantine is not the only influence that preventative measures may have on voter turnout. Quarantine, isolation, and banning of public gatherings prevent such social lives that would not only allow and normalize electoral participation, but encourage it. As a result of the sociological aspects of combating this pandemic, we also may reduce the population’s overall likelihood to vote. Looking at the Spanish Flu of 1918, 20% of those who voted in the 1914 and 1910 American midterm elections did not vote in the 1918 midterm elections. In fact, an increase in infections immediately after the elections that year combined with the drop in turnout, offers what the New York Times calls “the worst outcome for any election.” Looking 100 years later, Beall, et al examines not turnout rate,

but the voting preferences of those who do turnout, allowing us to move beyond the framework of strictly voter turnout modeling and into how voters will vote. The theoretical application of past models to determine the effect COVID–19 will have on the November 2020 American elections is complemented by the data that came from the 2020 American Democratic primaries. In the immediate aftermath of the outbreak being proclaimed by the World Health Organization on March 11th as a pandemic, two states without large percentages of mail–in voting held their primaries without a delay, while Florida saw turnout bolstered through higher than normal mail ballots and most voters in Arizona’s primaries voted early. In contrast, Illinois conducted its primary as planned and provides very pertinent data that can be used. The Chicago area saw

a third of the turnout that it traditionally saw, according to Illinois Board of Elections Spokesman Matt Dietrich. A suburb of the city saw only 15% of its registered voters turnout. These “exceedingly low” turnout numbers offer a picture of what November 2020 could look like as the virus remains a dominant factor in everyday life. Wisconsin, like Illinois, is a state with traditionally low absentee or main–in ballot rates, with only 1 in 10 ballots cast remotely during the 2016 Presidential Primaries. In the face of not only COVID–19, the state’s primary got even more chaotic and controversial, as the Democratic Governor Tony Evers attempted to get the election date rescheduled, first by agreement with the Republican Legislature, and then by emergency power. Following a loss at the state Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court refusing to take the case, the election was held on its original day. The state saw turnout drop from 49% to 31%, but more dramatic is that 80% of that turnout was via absentee ballot. This compounds with the absentee ballot spike, leaving a concerning trend, that even if most voters were to vote by mail, turnout could still plummet. All told, the picture offered for November 2020, from the turnout trends of the 1918 elections in the midst of the Spanish Flu and the ones being offered in Illinois and Wisconsin, is of one of low turnout, and those who turnout voting more conservatively, should COVID–19 remaining a dangerous part of everyday life.

Economic Crisis The crisis COVID–19 has wrought across the world is not strictly a result of the disease’s health–related complexities though. To understand how this virus will affect the November 2020 elections, the economic effects of the crisis it is causing have to be analyzed to try and understand how the economic aspects will come in to play at the ballot box. From February 19th, 2020, to March 23rd 2020, the Dow Jones Index lost 37% of its value, and the United States GDP contracted 32.9% in the second quarter. Mohamed El–Erian, a former deputy director of the International Monetary Fund, described it

as a “generation–defining moment,” saying “I’ve never seen an economic stop on this scale, certainly never in big countries and all at once.”(Partington and Wearden). In Europe, the Great Recession and its wake’s effect on politics provides such a glimpse. Anna Bosco and Susannah Verney, in their 2012 paper tracking the 2010–2011 election cycles in southern European countries hit hard by the recession, found a commonality with Häusermann, as they too noted a decrease in turnout in the countries hit hardest economically in the countries they studied. Most notably, though, they observed that the incumbent lost in 10 out of the 12 countries they examined. In fact, in examining voting in countries with economic crises, they concluded that

“incumbent punishment seems to have become the hallmark of crisis elections.” They did notice similar trends in that the traditional opposition did not succeed, and that untraditional and new candidates rose, “whose common characteristic was the rejection of the existing system.” This incumbent punishment and mainstream party destabilization that Bosco and Verney noted, is further built upon a the paper by Enrique Hernández and Hanspeter Kriesi. While punishing incumbents during downward economic crises are common, they found that “In contexts like the Great Recession, the punishment of the incumbents by the voters is not only likely to occur in much greater proportions, but its consequences are also likely to be long–lasting.” Through these lenses, the model Europe suggests is that the worse, and longer, the economic crisis is, the more the incumbent will be punished. The same is true in the United States, to the point where the state of the economy is, as Vavreck writes, considered one of “of the structural or fundamental conditions that drive election outcomes.” In fact, while elections are inherently a contrasting of two

options to see which one is liked more by the voting population (in theory), “but that independent of this almost tautological effect, the state of the economy is an evenbetter predictor of the outcome,” according to Robert Erikson. In examining incumbent Presidents losing elections in the 20th century, this theory is seen in practice. When looking at elections held during recessions during the 1900’s incumbent Presidents Hoover, Carter, and H.W Bush lost in 1932, 1980, and 1992 respectively. Out of the last ten Presidential elections featuring an incumbent, the incumbent has won 7 times. Carter and H.W Bush constitute two of the three losers, with President Ford being the third, in addition to then–incumbent–Vice–President Nixon losing against John F. Kennedy in 1960. These losses become dramatic when one considers the incumbency advantage. Over the last 20 years in the United States, being the incumbent has offered an advantage ranging from three to eight percentage points in the polls, depending on year and office, with the incumbent President on the lower edge of the scale. The evaporation of this advantage for incumbents is seen in the fact that it is estimated that each percentage point of Gross Domestic Product gained or lost in the last four financial quarters translates into an almost equal share of percentage point of votes gained or lost by the incumbent President according to Annie Lowrey and Larry Bartels. However, it is impossible for the point to point comparison to hold, strictly due to the limits of voter shares, ideological preference, and the absolute implosion of the American economy. Therefore, the incumbency advantage is not only erased, but the punishment of the incumbent American President is likely to be harsh as well.

art by an

am faruq

¤ƏŃǕCŃıö /Ƣüðų The COVID–19 crisis will have two effects on the November ballots for the American Presidency. The first is the effect on voter behavior as a result of its pathogen based consequences, with the second being the economic crisis that has resulted. Each has distinct effects

Republicans themselves believe this fact to be true, with both Speaker of the Georgia House David Ralston and President Trump both acknowledging the danger increased turnout poses to Republican electoral chances. Speaker Ralston decried expanded absentee ballot access as a result of COVID–19, believing that potential increased turnout “will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia.” President Trump believes that with increased “levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” In fact, conservatives as far back as 1980 acknowledge that their “leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” As a result, the pandemic–specific aspects of the crisis suggest lower and more conservative voter turnout will be beneficial to the Republican party and President Trump’s re–election chances. This contrasts with the discussed punishment of the incumbent due to the economic crisis however. With a contraction of approximately 33% in the second quarter, the current economic crisis is the worst in modern history. Professional economists are not the only one noting this dramatic contraction, as it has resulted in over half of American households having an income decline, and one in ten American workers have lost their jobs since the spring. During that time frame, 65% of Americans noted

a belief that the economy was getting worse. As a result, we can almost assuredly count on the economic effects of the crisis still being felt– dramatically– by the year’s end. In conclusion, while lower turnout and increased likelihood to vote conservative are possible for the 2020 Presidential Election, due to the fact that the economic aspect of the crisis is going to be more poignant on Election Day, alongside Trump’s underwater approval rating on his handling of the COVID–19 crisis, Donald Trump is at a significant disadvantage to be re–elected. As political strategist James Carville said, “It’s the economy, stupid,” and this will ring true this fall. While there certainly will be aspects of the crisis that are beneficial to Republicans, such as decreased turnout and the ties between concerns over cleanliness and a propensity to vote conservative, the widespread damage from COVID–19 spell a stinging rebuke for the incumbent President and his party.

art by anam faruqi

on voting trends. A study (by Beall, Schaller, and Hofer) suggests that those actively thinking about the pandemic will vote more conservatively, in addition to potentially dramatically lowering voter turnout. The economic effects suggest a harsh punishment for the incumbent, while traditionally each percentage of contraction is almost equal to a contraction in the incumbent’s vote share, this theory will ultimately be stretched by current contraction. In order to weigh how COVID–19 will affect the election, how each of these different aspects affect voting trends needs to be measured, alongside the strength of each. As already discussed, the “salience” of the pandemic on the voter’s mind will cause them to vote more conservatively, benefiting America’s conservative Republicans. In addition, lower turnout is generally viewed as favorable to Republicans, as in the 2016 Presidential Election, registered voters who did not turn out were more likely to lean Democrat than Republican.

COVID-19

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

The pandemic has exposing America’s disease

DON’T CARE

Youth and the pandemic: Fuck it who cares. None of us are living to see 70 anyways with Global warming and all. Not like you can really control how your body reacts to it so in a way its already predetermined. I only really do the masks and social distancing out of respect for the health of my community and those around me. Sherwin Amsbaugh

I’ve tried to be responsible and do my part, but it’s hard when other young people act irresponsibly so blatantly. Anonymous

I DO WHAT I CAN

I do what I can with consideration for others, but I’ve certainly made my mistakes. Andrew Brilliant

I’ve been fairly relaxed about social distancing when living with other young people but stay away from anyone at risk. I’m stricter when living with older people. Anonymous

I’ve been incredibly careful, but now that I’m back at USC its been hard to be as careful. When I’m not around my parents and so many people view it as “just a flu” it makes it hard to be completely removed from it. I already have 10 friends who just tested positive within the last couple of days. Maxine Marcus

I have used the pandemic and a time to learn, try new things, and relax. The entire world has stopped so I have slowed down and spent more time with myself. I have also thought through more projects and am in the process of starting a nonprofit. Maya Bhandari With caution, fear, and the hopes to learn something valuable in all of this madness. Sami Rosenblatt

Trying to balance responsibility while still being young / experiencing day to day happiness. Mara Lorin With caution but also frustration. It’s infuriating to see other countries returning to normal because of their responses and knowing that’s not going to be a reality for me for a long time. Maya Lathi

CARE

It saddens me to see some of my friends partying, dining at restaurants, and not caring about their own well being, let alone other people’s. I understand this is not the ideal situation and, no, I don’t enjoy staying home, but I don’t have any sort of “right” to party just because I’m young. My actions affect my family, my friends, and quite frankly, strangers who have family and friends to worry about. I will not be responsible for the death of someone because I was too selfish to stay home. Izzy Gatti

Trying to inspire our generation to not let ourselves get blamed for spreading the virus by having parties and going to bars. (We failed.) I continue to stay pretty much completely quarantined. Jackson Prince

Has COVID-19 changed your perspective on America/the government?

/ It shows how individualism and selfishness that usually works to our favor has come back to haunt us. Deanie Chen / / The response to the pandemic felt childish and irresponsible. Almost as if America didn’t care for its people. Anonymous / / I’ve already known that America only cares about

the 1%, and our politicians have only continue to prove that point. Anonymous /

/ Many philosophies of the origination of government exist. Yet, people tend to agree that governments were created to aid the people and to organize resources or functions. The United States, specifically, is a democracy. The government is supposed to represent the people and to reflect their views. I certainly believed this before coronavirus occurred. Now, I still think the government is supposed to serve its people, but I do not think that the United States government has really done this. Issues of national health and wellbeing have become political or controversial as millions of people are dying. Chloe Hirth / / Our “capitalist” education, healthcare, and political systems put us all at risk. Lachlan Woosley / / It has shown our inability to subvert even in

times of life or death. That’s nationalism right there. Andrew Brilliant /

/ While it was evident before that the health care

system in America was disjointed, this further proved it. Additionally, I think it also shows in a different light our overreliance on imports as it took many weeks to establish our own manufacturing and infrastructure.

Anonymous /

Global Empathy

The Vaccine for the 21st Century. by arya bhatia

In March, COVID–19 was declared a pandemic and we realized that the human race could not simply turn to a product of science and innovation to ensure our survival. It was also the first time we heard the term, social distancing – the only fail–proof protection from the virus, a solution completely rooted in human coordination. It was the first time in our lives where we as a collective humanrace had to step up and take individual responsibility in the efforts to solve a collective problem. We had to rise to the occasion and hold ourselves accountable in a way that had never been asked of us before. Today, however, I ask myself: “Can an individualist attitude solve a challenge whose solution lies in a collectivist mindset?” And the answer is, no. About 6-7 months after COVID–19 became a reality for most of us, we realise that the impact it has left on different parts of the world can be deeply attributed to one of the best evidenced and fundamental theories of cultural psychology: individualism v/s collectivism. Two powerful words which define the very core of the social structures we live in; words that aren’t mutually exclusive, but rather work in harmony–in different proportions–to organize our societies and determine how they function. While individualism can be defined as a social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over the group, collectivism is a value that is characterized by an emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over the self. As an Indian citizen, my life in communitarian India serves as a contrast to individualistic societies, which I notice are more self-oriented and socially

art by maddy ledger

and psychologically more isolated. Historically the Anglophonic west has been branded as individualist while the Confucian and Sanskrit inspired east has been referred to as collectivist. This is also evident in the way language – which often reflects what does and doesn’t matter in a society – has adapted to the societal structure. Words like “personal rights,” “freedoms,” and “privileges’’ are all widespread and commonly used in the West. Though these words can be easily translated into Hindi (India’s national language), they tend to feel just like that – awkward translations. On the other hand mildly suffocating words and concepts like “societal harmony,” “moral consciousness,” and “societal standing,” which have their indegenous words in the Hindi language, may sound awkward to westerners. The contrast in this selection of particular words only serves evidence to how collectivist cultures are far more community-minded and are willing to adapt to keep the peace and safety even if it takes away from their personal freedom – something that can be attributed to their compassion or concern for what others think of them. Either way, This in turn only increases the efficacy of massive social coordination. The World Health Organisation found that the two countries, Japan and South Korea, which responded well to the coronavirus did so through this same social coordination. They quoted that Collectivism may be a reason why these countries performed so well.

Hence, whilst there’s nothing inherently better, or worse, about individualism or collectivism — like any system of cultures, both have their merits and shortcomings. While individualism does give one the freedom to express themselves, collectivism is more suited to adapting to a worldwide pandemic and may increase its sway in the age where massive social coordination is key to overcoming crises. However, this ability to socially coordinate must not end with the pandemic but rather become the new normal because tomorrow Gen Z is going to face many more crises than previous generations that can range from climate change to nuclear warfare to cyber attacks (an alien invasion or rogue AI maybe?!) that can only be controlled through an even higher level of collective action than we are seeing today – which is not good enough. During the COVID pandemic we have become privy to how leading political and economic unions of countries and inter–governmental organizations globally are unable to work together to create a coordinated strategy to beat this virus. In the future, International relations can no longer be plagued by isolationism and nationalism but rather need to be characterized by trust and collective action. When it comes to the global crises of tomorrow, what will truly matter is whether or not countries are socially coordinated in their external affairs and not just their internal societies. Sounds cliché, but now is the time to present a united front, because the human race is past the phase of ‘war amongst humanity’ and has entered the phase of ‘war on humanity’ as the coronavirus has shown us.

However, though this sentiment of cooperation is not one that can be built overnight, we need to begin somewhere. As voters who elect leaders that represent us on the world stage and set the tone of our international relations, the responsibility to appoint leaders with the mindset for collective action is on Gen Z as global citizens of the world. But before we begin on this journey we must embody what we wish to see–because alas the government only reflects the motives, attitudes and perspectives of those that vote for them. This is why the electorate must be able to relate and connect with the rest of humanity before they can expect their leaders to do the same. But, How can we do this? Global Empathy. An idea that we, as citizens of the world, must strive to develop the ability to understand, accept, and interact with individuals from all different backgrounds, regardless of race, nationality, language, religion, skin color, sex, etc. This is the empathy revolution that will allow us to develop the ability to perceive others’ feelings (and to recognize our own emotions), to imagine why someone might be feeling a certain way, and to have concern for their welfare. Once empathy is activated, compassionate action and trust is the most logical response. But for this to happen we can no longer operate in our own bubbles of cultures, ethnicities or religions and be oblivious towards all happening around us. The tech–enabled space–time compression we live in today has rendered our excuses invalid and broken down most barriers that once existed. We need to make an active, concerted effort into living a more shared experience by being conscious of all that is going on around us instead of dismissing it simply because it doesn’t affect us. Empathizing is hard but I personally try by staying up to date with the news, engaging with different communities around me to listen to their stories and perspectives. But most importantly RESPECT & TRUST. Finally, we can no longer make decisions with an individualistic mindset and need to work towards changing the ‘ME’ to a ‘WE’ – because in today’s interconnected world everything directly or indirectly affects us all. Finally we must acknowledge that connecting empathically with others—to feel with them, to care about their well– being, and to act with compassion—is critical to our lives, helping us to get along, work more effectively in the face of crises, and thrive as a society.

Your Silence Aids and Abets Violent Oppression This article was written on May 31st, in light of George Floyd’s murder – but the sentiment remains time and time again. When will this change?

by abeer tijani The last time that I tried to sit down and write something like this, it was about two weeks ago. Ahmaud Arbery’s face was plastered all across my social media accounts, and I was doggedly avoiding the traumatizing video of his death circulating around the internet which was a reminder of the value a seemingly already desensitized country has placed on a Black body: none. I struggled to grapple with my exasperation and attempted to find words that could somehow build a case as to why a Black life should matter in the eyes of the law and America’s inhabitants. I struggled, and I failed. I was lost as to why, time and time again, America’s Black citizens have been subjected to tirelessly defending their literal humanity, when that supposed humanity should be enough basis to argue against the lynching, terrorizing, and pure subjugation of Black lives. I struggled, and I failed, and eventually, Ahmaud’s name was compartmentalized by a part of my brain that had begun to serve as a memorial ground for the countless named and unnamed Black bodies that have been martyred recklessly and unabashedly by the brute force of racism that runs this country.

Two weeks later, I didn’t forget, because it’s hard to forget the faces and names of people who could so easily be you, or a friend, or a family member, but for the sake of my own sanity, I decided to gently tuck away the outrage and disgust that I felt so as to not overwhelm myself more than necessary in the midst of a pandemic. (I read that sentence over and over again; I am defending my life, and the lives of people who look like me, during a time where the pressure to live and protect yourself from a virus weighs heavily on your conscious daily). I, unfortunately, am not rewarded the grand privilege of being able to turn the other cheek. I cannot afford to ignore America’s long, historical animalization of Black bodies simply because I am uncomfortable, or tired of the hashtags I have been seeing since age twelve. I don’t get to ever fully shut off because the color of my skin doesn’t suddenly shut off when I leave my home and face a world that takes me in first as skin color, and then as a human being. Unlike many of

my non–black peers, I do not get to walk through life without antagonizing over the very real consequences of having your race be weaponized in America. So here I am, two weeks later, with the same pit in my stomach, with the same sinking realization that there is a stark difference between the security I long for with personal safety and prosperity (to be able to run outside, to be heard when speaking, to be respected in the various spaces that I occupy), and that of my non–black friends—the security that they are entitled to, just by way of being anything else but Black in this country. My focus is not to write a eulogy for the countless Black bodies that have been butchered and cast aside by the majority of the American population—whether by bloodshed, or the more widespread and dangerous apathetic attitude living inside of non–black residents–, but to simply address my non–black peers who do not understand the deadliness that silence holds in this country.

This is especially for my peers who feel as though “it is not their place” to speak on race issues in America, or that “feel uncomfortable talking about race” or “can’t believe that race is still an issue in 2020”—the fact that your pain only extends to woeful ignorance, discomfort, or perhaps solidarity in mourning victims, is an astronomical entitlement that you have been awarded over me. We are all aware that it is never easy to stand behind controversial issues, and that it can feel as though you’re shouting into a void trying to get people to care about what seems to make perfect sense to you. Our generation has begun to champion climate change activism, has pushed for the transformation of feminism against years of patriarchal normality, and was the generation to continue demanding more for LGBTQ relations in America. But when it comes to race relations, particularly the race issues unique to Black people, the silence from our generation becomes almost unbearable. Perhaps this is because the aforementioned issues do not force us to examine the uglier parts of our psyche—the parts that are perpetuating police terrorism or covert white supremacy—the way that the Black Lives Matter movement does? Is the refusal to examine your internalized racism worth being able to inaccurately say that you aren’t at all racist? Because for me, and others like me, it does not stop at those feelings of discomfort; it becomes a matter of life or death. A matter of at times feeling as though we are begging for something that should be the most common of the senses: for our lives to be valued the same way as the person standing in front of us for no other reason besides sharing a common bond in humanity. Therefore, as a non–black person living in America— whether permanently or just for four years of university— the onus is on you to step outside of your discomfort and sympathy and reach into your empathy. If you’re “afraid of saying the wrong thing,” say it anyway. There will be someone to correct you. How could you ever begin to learn, and more importantly, to fight against racism’s permeation throughout society, if you allow your fear to paralyze you in the same spot that we have occupied for the last 8, 60, 400 years? It could start with doing more than reposting something on social media to appease your guilty conscience. Start educating yourself on all the ways in which race perversely propagates inequality throughout our society, and then start having

those conversations with the people around you. By not engaging in these issues–whether through conversation or figuring out how you can understand and unsheathe the different levels of racial interactions in this country, the ways in which they have subconsciously been ingrained in you, and why they have been subconsciously ingrained in you—you’re staying in a dangerous area of comfort that will not aid in combating 400 years of oppression (context: it’s only been 56 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, there have been multiple iterations of it, and we still haven’t gotten it right—there’s years of catch up work to do). If you choose to stay comfortable, that silence will fuel your future: you will be perpetuating this cycle as a healthcare worker unable to understand the ways in which race inequalities affect a Black person’s health, or a university professor unable to provide the support needed to amplify your Black students’ voices in classrooms, or as a policymaker missing the mark on crafting policy that will actually benefit Black communities in America. I am not here to provide concrete solutions for you or ways to appease your guilty consciousness’ complicity. I am not the spokesperson for the complex Black experience in America. I am simply someone who has a voice and has chosen to use it in some capacity. I cannot force you into a conversation, but I genuinely hope that you one day feel the urge to have these conversations. As college students, our social consciousness and energy for advocacy is probably the highest it will ever be right now. Coupled with the untethering of normal social order that has come with COVID–19, our collective human consciousness should be at an all–time high right now. Yet, we still feel weary. Consider: if Black lives are not protected during the most vulnerable time we are experiencing as a generation, what can we expect in the world that is waiting for us after the pandemic ends?

Do you like the answer that came to your mind?

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

The resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement was fueled by student activism. In efforts to change the nation’s foundation, as students we first had to question and address our individual roles within this system. Did you participate in the resurgence of the BLM movement?

HOW?

ATTENDED PROTESTS SOCIAL MEDIA ADVOCACY DONATED LISTENED & LEARNED

PARTICIPATED

STARTED DIFFICULT CONVOS

Our agency as change makers & the potential for impact. We have more power than we think.

BECAME AN ALLY I think the biggest step to take is overcoming the concept that an individual can’t make a difference - anyone can! and that mindset is just dangerous in general because there’s no incentive to ever do anything. keep the conversation alive and set up recurring donations!

29.2% NO 70.8% YES

Michelle Austreich

How we can make a change: ORGANIZING SILENCE KILLS

STILL COMES FROM THE LEADERS

BELIEVE IN YOUR WORD VOTE

INFLUENCE FRIENDS AND FAMILY

MASS MOVEMENTS UNITED

ACCOUNTABILITY

SOCIAL MEDIA

VOTE LOCAL VOICE

COLLABORATE ONLINE COMMUNITY REVOLUTION EMPATHY

GRASSROOTS ACTION SMALL DAILY CHANGES INFLUENCE THOSE AROUND YOU SCHOOL PETITION AGENCY AND URGENCY SHARE, LISTEN AND LEARN

DONATE CONVERSE

LOBBY

WRITE

PROTEST

STARTS WITH YOU AND YOUR COMMUNITY CHANGE THE MEDIA AND IDEAS WE PERPETUATE

ORGANIZED WITHIN RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES CONTACTED GOV REPS

Did it change the way you view our potential to enact change?

COMMUNITY

SIGNED PETITIONS

MARCH

We have a lot of power in influencing people in power but they have to listen and they have to want to change policy + practices. It shouldn’t be on the backs of individuals to solely do this work. There needs to be a collaboration.

Annabelle Asali

Modern movements make more of an impact than those of the past. With the internet, each individual has the power to reach hundreds or thousands of other people. In the past few months, I’ve seen the power of grassroots fundraising and petitioning. We simply have to believe that our word and actions have value. I hope that in the coming election, individuals feel like their votes count and that their voices are being heard.

Kavita Rai

We have a voice and we need to use it. Influence your friends and family, your community. If everyone had this mindset, the change you make will continue to grow.

Anam Faruqi

ico

kle

Religions MĹƦŸüĹðü ŃĹ ¿ŃųěĹĒ

Too taboo, the taboo two: religion & politics. by eden burkow Religion, for many, is a key component that makes up one’s self-identity. Religion is worn with pride, as a badge of honor that represents a commitment to community values. While the word religion in Latin means “to tie or bind together,” many religions often appear in opposition to one another. However, according to scholar Stephen Prothero, he finds that religions have more “family resemblances” than not. All religions have a form of rituals, scriptures, sacred days, and gathering places. Most importantly: religion gives its followers some sort of “instructions” for how humans should act towards one another. Religion is an integral part of self-identity – in the most intimate way. Religion bonds people by shared values creating a community, which in turn, influences voter behavior – a less-discussed impact of religion. I am a young Jewish American woman, and one of Judaism’s teachings that I live by is Tikkun O’lam, repairing the world. This value encourages me to make the world a more peaceful, equal, and tolerant society through the actions of Tzedakah (charity), Hesed (kindness), and political action for justice. It teaches me to act constructively for the benefit of

society and not “Stand Idly By.” While I cannot speak on behalf of my entire community, I have observed and reflected on the impact my religious beliefs have on political behavior – especially during this current election. Today, as a Generation Z’er in a polarized America, I have a heightened consideration for my humanity and how I interact with my peers, especially knowing my vote impacts their lives. I question: what has my religion taught me about treating others and how does MY vote in the upcoming election affect all those around me? Voting behavior can be easily influenced by religion and is often predictable because many religions have a public position on an issue – so one’s vote must “fall in line” with their religious identity. For example, religious beliefs may predetermine and impact one’s stance on the issues of abortion or homosexual rights due to the moral values and restrictions promoted in religious doctrines. As a voter, I ask myself what kind of impact my religious identity has on my voting decisions in comparison to the influences of my race, family and friends, or even the area in which I grew up. A question for all: Do our religious identities hold more power over our voting decisions than our consideration of all of society?

Questions I Propose:

Did you grow up with a religious background?

Have your religious beliefs influenced your political ideologies?

Have you made voting decisions based on your religious beliefs?

Do your political beliefs make you question your religion?

Regarding the following topics, where do you stand versus your religion? Women’s reproductive rights Homosexuality LGBTQ+ Environment, specifically climate change Women’s rights Vaccines Economics

As a Generation Z’er, the youngest demographic group to cast a ballot – I ask you to reflect on what has made an impact on your political beliefs, and how that will influence your voting behavior. Perhaps, as a Generation Z’er – religion has not yet, or never will, impact your identity or even guide you towards a specific political party – especially in the way that it has affected behaviors of past generations. Perhaps, as a Generation Z’er you vote solely by the principle you hold yourself to, and the values and policies you care for. When voting in the upcoming election, I challenge you to consider your vote and how it will impact the world around you, and not just yourself. But I challenge you further to take the time to discover within yourself why you vote the way you do.

Madame President

Is the United States ready for a female president? art by sadie paczosa

by sami rosenblatt

Is the United States ready for a female President? This query alone contains multitudes… The answer to this question, at face value, is, yes. We have the infrastructure in place to elect any person to the executive office so long as they are a natural–born citizen, at least 35 years of age, that has lived in the US for over 14 years, and who has legitimately participated in an election won via the support of 270 electoral votes. So yes, technically the United States is ready, or more appropriately, able, to award the presidency to any candidate who fulfills such requirements. The better question is, just because theoretically this could happen, is it feasible, or likely to happen soon? This is why the answer we feel more compelled to give, is “no.” What prevents us from having faith in a woman’s ability to achieve this title, is that a woman, when entering the political arena, faces challenges unmatched by her male counterparts. A female candidate’s ascent towards the office of presidency looks more like an obstacle course– where even the slightest unaccounted–for misstep can throw off progress incalculably– rather than a steep hill, that can simply be overcome through effort or dollars. This is not just an analogy for analogy’s sake, but an attempt to illustrate how the matrices of power that a female candidate must navigate are inherently more complex than those of a male candidate because just by being a woman, a person is subject to more opportunities for oppression, suppression, and judgment. It is worthy to note that similar qualities of a person that would also complicate their ascent to power and force them to encounter more difficult navigation through “the powers that be ‘’ are their race, religion, or sexuality. Some candidates are forced to endure even greater obstacles as their identity is formed around belonging to more than one of the groups oppressed by systems of patriarchy, white supremacy, and lingering puritanical conceptions of sexuality. This theoretical framework for illustrating the ways in which multiple systems of power dynamics intersect is aptly called intersectionality and it was coined by the professor, lawyer, and critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw.

Intersectionality is central to the topic of women in politics because without acknowledging it, we are forced into the problematic throws of tokenism and monolithic thinking. Demonstrative of what happens when intersectionality is left out of politics is the case of Hillary Clinton. For the sake of the argument, putting independent candidates aside, Clinton was the only female candidate running for President in 2016. Harping on this, it was easy for her campaign to adopt the slogan, “I’m with her.” The only “her” it could be referencing was Clinton, plain and simple. However, this implicit association between her/female/woman and Clinton is not neutral. Hillary Clinton is a white, wealthy, cisgender, Christian, straight woman. She alone cannot represent all women. Equating Hillary with being representative of all womanhood is over simplistic and harmful. This is why it’s ridiculous to insinuate, as many critics did, that women would vote for Hillary just because she was, too, a woman. Many people who identify as women, due to other elements of their identity formation and personal politics could see any other candidate as being in a better position to protect their ideals and better represent them, perhaps an explanation for the appeal of Bernie Sanders. Personally, this is why I take such issues with election year phrases such as “voting with your vagina,” that were coined only to make a joke of women in politics through ridiculous imagery, and to condense womanhood into a monolithic system. Not even all people who identify as women have this genital makeup… Still, there is a double–edged sword to this piece of the puzzle. Because, although we must acknowledge how the absence of intersectional considerations alienates women who fall into more than one category of systemic oppression, we also must acknowledge how this division is being co–opted strategically by rival (usually male) politicians to keep women fighting with each other instead of joining forces to take down bigger systems that keep them clawing against each other on the bottom rather than climbing on their way to the top. For this next case study, I will direct attention to Shirley Chisholm. Chisholm was a Black female Presidential

candidate in the 1972 election. Shirley was the first Black woman elected to the United States Congress, and she represented New York’s 12th congressional district for seven terms from 1969 to 1983. Shirley was also a first–generation American, her father was a Guyanese immigrant and mother was a Barbadian immigrant. As a politician, Chisholm was in a unique position because she had the potential to be a favored candidate amongst immigrants, first–generation Americans, women, people of color, and especially Black people and Black women. Of course, this doesn’t mean that Shirley was representative of all of these populations or should be held to the standard of speaking on behalf of any of these groups– that would be tokenism plan and simple. But, it did give voters belonging to such groups the opportunity to see a candidate who shared an element of identity with them. The same could not be said for Richard Nixon, who ultimately won the presidency. Chisholm should have had the opportunity to run for President just like any other candidate, but instead, her campaign was incredibly difficult and she weathered a lot of discrimination, not only from outsiders and political opponents but also from within the DNC and the male–dominated Congressional Black Caucus. Chisholm was held from participating in televised primary debates and was only permitted to make one speech after she herself pursued legal action. Despite these abhorrent setbacks, she entered 12 primaries and garnered 152 of the delegates’ votes (10% of the total votes). Shirley Chisholm should represent more than a story of a woman who fought the hard fight, she shouldn’t become part of a canon of stories of black strife that inspire white audiences to find their Christian charity. She is giving us a mirror, crystal clear, that shows us the faults in our “democracy,” the power systems that corrupt the land of the free. If your first thought was that 1972 was just “too early for a female President” or” too early for a black female President at that,” I would redirect you to history with a two–pronged answer. First, to remind you of Indira Gandhi (prime minister of India 1966), Golda Meir (prime minister of Israel in 1969), Sirimavo Bandaranaike (prime minister of Sri Lanka/Ceylon 1970). All without mentioning historical queen regnants form the days of

yore, household names like Zewditu, Queen Elisabeth, or Mary Tudor. The second prong of the answer to that question is the notion of the ever sliding political scale. It might be confusing to believe this today (well maybe not under the Trump administration that so obviously differs from its previous administration) but the entire political spectrum of the United States in the 1970s was a slide to the left, if you will. For reference, let’s consider the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), a topic that deserves practically its own textbook (or at least a watch of Mrs. America on Hulu, you won’t regret it). The amendment, written to guarantee equal constitutional treatment of all genders, proposed in the 1970s never came into fruition. This is the type of language that we now would immediately consider to be politically divisive, but at the time of its proposal, the legislation seemed like a no–brainer, it was well–supported across party lines and even had Presidential approval. However, the ERA was wrecked when the fears of conservative women (really more caused by fear of commies and hippies) was co–opted by the republican party to defeat the amendment and bring “family values” and the alt–right back into the political mainstream. This mechanism came to shift the political spectrum of the country at large, forever redefining party platforms on issues such as reproductive rights and other gendered issues. It would surprise modern audiences to know that there were once vehemently feminist republican women, working in diverse spaces for non–traditional causes… It was once the powers of patriarchy found the central nerve in a “women’s issue” that they were able to create discord amongst women, deepen the political divide and swing the whole spectrum to the right under Reagan. While women continued to fight for equal rights and on behalf of feminism, they were never able to again gain the traction and prominence they had in the 1970s, their progress had been erased by the 1980s conservatism and they had to start again from square one. Infuriating. The notion of “progressiveness” that we direct towards the concept of a female President of the US itself, should be laughable. Truly, we are incredibly behind and should be embarrassed. Victoria Woodhull ran for

art by maddy ledger

President in 1872, fifty years prior to the constitutional amendment that gave (some) women the right to vote. Chillingly, of her campaign, Victoria said “I am quite well aware that in assuming this position I shall evoke more ridicule than enthusiasm at the outset. But this is an epoch of sudden changes and startling surprises. What may appear absurd to–day will assume a serious aspect to–morrow.” There have been one hundred and forty– eight years between then and now, full of technological advancement, disease eradication, world wars, and still– her words feel eerily contemporaneous, as if they could have been spoken on behalf of any woman in today’s political landscape. The political landscape which we’ve inherited was not inevitable, and although some people try to prevent progress under the guise of “but we’ve always done it THIS way,” that is simply untrue. Yes, the United States has always preserved traditional power structures, but it hasn’t always done this so overtly and unabashedly or unembarrassed. In modern history, Reagan began this trend, pulling religious conservatives from the far wings of the Republican party and into the center. Trump is mimicking this, and this is the effect of Trump–era gaslighting. The very notion from which the slogan Make America Great Again, has been drawn– a falsified history, taken straight from the mouth of the Reagan campaign.

Similar to how Reagan’s presidency marks the end of the 60s and 70s radical progressivism, we’ve seen Trump as the bookend to the Obama administration. Now, more than ever, we must be forward-thinking about what we will do to prevent a total recreation of the movement of the political scale. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and so it goes...

We must stop the narrative of women in politics as rarities and stop placing them on a pedestal of progressiveness, it’s not something to be celebrated, and this is not making them any more electable. It is inhibiting their ability to be taken seriously, because it is essentializing their gender and painting a lens of radicalism that precludes mainstream appeal. We are behind, and the advancement of female candidates, among other underrepresented minorities, can bring us closer to where we should be in the present, but it’s laughable to think it would make us progressive. By painting women in governmental positions of power, like Justice Ginsburg or AOC as superheroes, we’re patting ourselves on the back for nothing. These women are laudable, but by categorizing them as such, we are stripping them of their humanity and holding them to an impossible standard of mythology and superheroism. This is an effect mirrored by many minority groups, where any person who “rises above their circumstances” is not seen as having been able to overcome systemic oppression but just as “lucky” or “chosen” falsely presenting as if the mechanisms for achieving power are working, rather than making us acknowledge how much that person had to overcome just to get to where they are today, and what they still are forced to endure. So long as the declaration of independence proclaims “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” we are at issue. From a legal perspective, we are not bound to

this document, it isn’t legislation, but it sets forth the spirit with which to read our constitution and origin story. If we took its use of the word Men to be gender-neutral, as we’re meant to believe it is being used today, the government cannot legitimately fulfill the promise of deriving its power from the consent of the government when women, BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, and incarcerated people have to jump through hoops to have their voices heard. If we take it at face value, that it is referring only to men, (historically, white land–owning men), we arrive at the same problem of illegitimate leadership, just more directly. So before you “stand with Her,” call AOC a “boss bitch,” or don a “Notorious RBG” hoodie, consider the mechanisms of power that contribute to our current political landscape. Recognize the pitfalls of whitewashed liberalism and/or white feminism and how these serve as booby traps barring genuine societal advancement. It is time for women in politics, it has been well– past time, and it is time for women belonging to more than one systematically disadvantaged and or marginalized groups to be able to come to power. These candidates cannot be discounted because they are “sassy,” “unprofessional,” or “uneducated,” these very words when used against women and BIPOC women in particular refer to historical phrenological pseudosciences of the “humors,” “hysteria” and eugenics. For if a male candidate expressed the same fierce emotion, jargon–free campaign speech or humble background that would cause us to say such things about a woman, we would call the man “assertive,” “in–touch” or “relatable.” It is an election year, America, and there is no longer time to have a woman in the oval office this cycle, but progress requires action and action requires dedication. In the next four years, and for all the years to come, if we want to strive to form a “more perfect union,” we must diversify our legislative branch and executive positions for our own sake. If the definition of our democracy is “by and for the people,” then the faces of those in power must look more like the faces of those who are affected by power.

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

Women in Politics We’re paving the road where women in leadership isn’t impressive, it’s the standard. How do you feel that Biden picked a woman of color as his running mate? It doesn’t matter

Do you think this country is ready for a female president? 88.9% YES

12.5%

4.2%

16.7% It’s extremely important

26.4% 40.3%

11.1% NO Describe your overall sentiments around how women are treated in politics. If you have specific examples that you can provide, please do. The fact that Kamala Harris is cherished as the first black woman in politics highlights the difference. I wish we can finally get to a world when women leading isn’t impressive, it’s standard. Anonymous It’s offensive that emotion is such a big factor in this since our current president gets so offended by everything. Anonymous I think women in any field are held to different standards than men, especially women of color. I think women are more scrutinized, and womanhood is always involved in the conversation, whereas with a man, media is never focused on manhood or the idea of a man being in politics. Anonymous

I believe now more than ever, the fight for inclusivity within politics is progressing. Efrain Laguna Why are they critiqued for everything they do and say and are often aggressive instead of strong and brave? Katie Stone

Today, Fox News released an article about Dr. Jill Biden’s dress. This was the only topic discussed in the piece. The powerful and sentimental content of her DNC speech was not addressed. Her records as second lady, a mother, and an educator were not addressed. Needless to say, we have a long way to go. Anam Faruqi

The Privatized Public Opinion: Civic Literacy and Media Literacy

ÀĘÓų ðÓĸü ƥťūųƾ ųĘü ŢŃıÓťěƞÓųěŃĹ Ńť ųĘü ÓıĒŃťěųĘĸūǅ by nikki cohen Presidential Twitter beef, advertisements that seem to read our minds, and breaking news that reaches opposite ends of the world in a split second: we have become desensitized to the ways in which the media mercilessly constructs reality. By absorbing an unrestricted flow of information daily, biases solidify without conscious recognition. Our biases are then preyed upon by algorithms that tailor news and media intake specifically to one’s interests, and thus perpetuates the divides that threaten to tear our democracy apart. Along with the ability to legitimately and physically “unfollow” the opposition, facts are filtered to satisfy our own definitions of truth. In today’s state of political polarization, one woman’s fake news is another woman’s actuality. Prior to the 1980s, Americans got their news intake in a controlled, twice a day dosage. Limited airtime drove the news cycle more towards fact-based reporting, with little time left for stories cloaked in opinions and party politics. That is, until 1980 when Ted Turner founded the first 24-hour news station, Cable Network, better known today as CNN. Now able to cover a greater variety of topics and break the news in real-time, CNN could satisfy their audiences’ hunger for knowledge as well as entertainment. When competitors Fox News and MSNBC established themselves in the 1990s, 24 news stations’ main priority became maintaining viewership, leading to a de-emphasis of journalistic standards. And with the rise of social media in the 21st century, anyone can be the reporter now; the internet gives every individual a platform to express their opinions and to spread resonating content. While this facilitates communication and connection, the constant stream of information can be dangerously taken out of context if not read objectively. From prisons to education and everything in between, the United States’ capitalistic system favors privatization. The media is not excluded from such profit-seeking behaviors. Privatization of the media creates an incentive to subjugate the masses. Curating content for specific audiences creates a positive feedback loop where socio-political messaging influences political divides, leading to increased uptake of polarized news and thus perpetuating the media’s influence on public opinion. In order to gain viewership, and thus increase profits, media companies use tactics such as intentional messaging to feed into what an audience wants to believe. Something as mundane as a one-word difference can transform the entire meaning of a headline: Where Fox News describes the recent civil unrest sparked by the killing of George Floyd as “rioting,” CNN refers to the same instances as “protesting.” Though the channels are reporting on the same news, the lens by which they appeal to their audiences drastically contrast.

art by emma lam

The exploitation of public opinion is not a new concept in politics. When George Gallup created the first political poll in 1932, he intended for Americans to be the determinants of their own democracy. But as polling became a hallmark of political campaigning over the last century, algorithms and targeted advertisements followed in suit. With our overconsumption of social media today, we are constantly barraged with exposure to certain candidates, ideologies, and political propaganda. Such exposure makes public opinion dangerously malleable, as exemplified by the Cambridge Analytica scandal that broke in 2018. An ex-employee of the political consulting company blew the whistle on their unethical data breaching that swayed the 2016 US Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump, as well as the UK’s decision to pass Brexit. Cambridge Analytica essentially took user data– every click, swipe, and scroll– from Facebook in order to profile American voters based on personality. With a heavy focus on swing states and centric voters, Cambridge Analytica then aggressively targeted Americans with polarizing content and fear–mongering tactics in order to sway their votes right. This large–scale psychological manipulation molded American voters’ worlds into the way that the company intended. The implications of this privacy violation are simply unquantifiable. In the age of selfies and status updates, it is hardly a surprise that data is considered a more valuable resource than oil. After 4 years of suffering the repercussions of mishandling data, it is as evident as ever that we must tend to our media intake analytically and inquisitively. In order to be civically literate, it is not enough to just be informed; instead, as active participants in democracy, we must consider the power of multiple perspectives when we produce, read, and share information online. Our democracy has been through hell and back with such an erratic political climate, but as the future leaders of this system, it is our responsibility as young people to use the media to our advantage and not to our demise. We must consciously challenge the propaganda we consume on a daily basis in order to be responsible citizens and knowledgeable voters.

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

News & Media Consumption Our variety of news sources is a solution to combating the pigeon-holes of data algorithms. Where do we get our news?

Where do we get our news?

(67 responses)

Outlets

Sources

21 Traditional Media

18 16

Both

7 BBC

Instagram

WSJ

Twitter

CNN

NYT

Social Media

Other sources: Financial Times, The Economist, Google/Search Engines, USA Today, Washington Post, MSNBC, Reuter’s, Cable & Local News, Bloomberg, LA Times, NPR/Podcasts, Politico, Vice, News App, Fox, TikTok, Scientific research articles, TeleSUR, Redfish, Youtube, theSkimm, ABC, Jerusalem Times, Al Jazeera, Breitbart News, The Intercept, Mother Jones, Teen Vogiue, Philip DeFranco Show, Associated Press, FiveThirtyEight, Jacobin

Do you normally stick to the same sources?

Do you feel stuck in an echo chamber of the same perspective/opinion? 66.7% NO 33.3% YES

Not necessarily but I usually go back to the same sources because of how they write (clarity, language, research, credibility). Nicole Klein I read other sources too but rely on the few that seem committed to honesty and integrity. Most news today is a joke on both sides, spinning every story to promote an agenda. Anonymous Not really, I figure if I read everything and take certain perspectives with a grain of salt, I’ll end up somewhere near the truth.

Yes but I feel like it’s important to always expand your sources. I think I stick to specific sources because of convenience. Anonymous

Anonymous

I try not to so that I can ensure I’m getting more than one perspective. I think being able to understand more than one viewpoint is important in establishing empathy and in conducting a constructive conversation. Blaire Goldberg

I stick to consistent reporters. I find they have a vested interest in gaining trust, not gaining views.

Jackson Prince

The American Biathlon:

How Political Campaigns are Run So You Think You Can Be President? by zac emanuel Anyone who has seen middle school class President, or high school student senates, Undergraduate Student Body Presidents understands basically what a campaign is: the process of getting yourself elected. But how they actually function, and what their true purpose in getting someone elected varies from our collective base consciousness. In comparison to your run of the mill class, club, or team President, almost every American election is divided into two distinct stages. The first is the primary, when members of the same party compete to be the party’s nominee for a general election. While in higher profile elections and in states/ districts where one party is dominant, these can be very publicized, oftentimes at the lower levels of politics many are unaware of. Whether due to lack of publicity, information about the candidates, or seemingly random election dates, As a result, incumbents see a hefty advantage, up to 14 percentage points of the voter share. The general election is the other stage any election season, when nominees compete for the job they are ultimately running for. While ultimately the election that decides who receives the job, in areas like the Bronx’s 15th and 16th Congressional districts, two of the most liberal such districts in the nation, or in statewide elections in California or Texas, where one party holds a vice grip on the electorate, they may merely be formalities. The biggest (and newest known) difference between the primaries and the general election is in the minds of voters. Joshua Kalla and David E. Broockman, both

out of University of California, Berkeley published a landmark study in late 2017 that found a conclusion that helps understand the hows and whys of campaigns:

voters don’t change their minds about who they will support post primary. Given the highly partisan nature of American politics, this does make sense. Most of America’s independents are actually more likely to be “closeted partisans” as Kalla calls them, and only 7% of voters are actually true independents whos vote swings back and forth. This further helps us define the two stages of campaigns, and frankly can be seen in the differences between Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s current campaign, and the one he ran when the primary was competitive. During the competitive primary, with voter’s preferences more malleable, Biden staked himself as the definitive moderate in the campaign, squeezing oxygen from the Steve Bullocks and John Hickenlooper’s of the race, preventing them from being leading candidates from the middle. This forced other, while more progressive, still relatively moderate candidates like Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, and Cory Booker to the left, in order for them to try and find a lane and define nature for themselves. In doing so, Biden ensured he would win the primary. However, the strong support for more progressive candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren lead the Biden campaign to establish a Unity Task Force with Sanders in order to create platforms and policies to unite their wings of the party upon Biden’s establishment as the de–facto nominee.

Why would a campaign, after holding themselves up as the pinnacle of being moderate, suddenly choose to leave that perch? The answer is, that unlike the primary where you need to convince people, the general election is about turnout. More eligible voters DID NOT vote in 2016 than voted for EITHER candidate. Essentially, national elections or competitive swing races come down to how many supporters of a certain candidate actually end up voting. This can be seen in the kind of messaging you see in the advertisements during the stages of the campaign. While in a primary campaign, candidates are more likely to focus on intra–party issues and responding to what their primary opponent is campaigning on. Combined with the focus on persuasion, the ads you will see during primaries are about policy, differences between the candidates, and why you should vote for Candidate A over Candidate B. In contrast, when looking at a general election campaign, a sense of urgency is what campaigns seek to inspire in voters. Whether due to encouraging outrage, concern, or hope, the goal is to get people to turnout to vote.

Essentially, at the local level, voters during general elections vote based on party preference or affiliation. During years with major elections, such as Presidential, or Gubernatorial, the success of higher-profile candidates will affect the success of lower-level elections. This is called the “down–ballot” effect. Races with lesser publicity will essentially piggyback off the larger profile races, as candidates to be your local city councilman will have significantly less money to spend on their races than the $35,000,000 that is in the combined total of cash on hand for Republican Martha McSally and Democrat Mark Kelly’s campaigns for Arizona Senate.

However, how do these forces ÓƢüðų ƕŃŸť ıŃðÓı üıüðųěŃĹūǅ

art by isabelle lemieux

On a larger scale, this can be seen in the national policies of each party. It is commonly held, and frankly, proven, that at a national level, increased voter turnout is highly beneficial to the Democratic party. As making it easier to vote leads to increased turnout, Democrats tend to support legislation and policies that would do as such. Suppressing turnout has been the policy of the Republican Party, through such policies as Voter ID laws, closing polling stations, and making it harder to get mail ballots. This usually was tied to election integrity in their messaging, as overtly encouraging lower turnout was considered taboo until earlier this year, when Donald Trump and Georgia Speaker of the House David Ralston admitted increased turnout would be “devastating” to Republicans.

With less than half of 1% of all internet ųťÓƣð ðŃƎüťěĹĒ ıŃðÓı ĹüƏūƿ ĘŃƏ öŃ campaigns even get formed?

with a campaign in the future, this is a really easy way to get your foot in the door, as you can do it on your own time, and it can often lead to official job or internships offers with campaigns).

Let’s start with the candidate: while plenty of local and grassroots campaigns are concerned citizens, plenty of local politicians enter the game either having been an aide to a candidate/government official, or have been recruited by their local party to run for a position. With former aides, there is a built in network of people who know how to run a campaign and fundraise, which are essential to getting elected. However, the recruited candidates are less likely to have a background in politics or government, and thus the group that recruits them helps provide the infrastructure and knowledge needed to run a campaign.

While the earlier mentioned down ballot effect ultimately can lead to the success or failure of a general election campaign, primaries are often won via name recognition. Your local candidate often does not have the finances to run a barrage of TV, Print, Radio, or Internet Ads. So how do candidates get such recognition? This can be generated through the personal interactions I mentioned above, through news coverage, or often most notably, through the process of endorsements, when a different person, candidate, official, or group publicly backs someone in an election. Especially for lower-level candidates, this offers a way to elevate your platform. A good example of this is through Bernie Sanders’s endorsement of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in her first primary against (former) Rep. Joe Crowley, who had been in office for over 20 years. Against Sanders’s heightened profile following the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary, in combination with an aggressive grassroots, door to door campaign, Ocasio-Cortez was able to unseat Crowley with a higher profile than your traditional firstterm Congresswoman.

Some of these groups are well known, such as EMILY’S LIST, which is dedicated to helping Pro–Choice Democrat women get elected. Partisan groups exist on both sides of the aisle, such as the National Federation of Republican Women. Other recruiting organizations are more specific in who they seek to recruit, such as Higher Heights for America, which supports Black women, or the Victory Institute, which helps LGBTQ+ candidates navigate the endorsement process and helps with funding.

sĹðü Ó !ÓĹöěöÓųü ěū ŃƢ ÓĹö running, what happens next? Especially in local, low profile campaigns, campaigns are reliant on face to face interactions, whether through attending local events like parades, celebrations, or charity events, or your traditional door to door canvassing. In many states, like my home state of Rhode Island, to even appear on a ballot, campaigns need to submit a petition of a certain number eligible voters for that specific election to be on the ballots. I personally got my start in political involvement circulating these petitions, by standing outside my local grocery market and approaching shoppers on the way inside and asking them to sign. (if you’re looking to get involved

The two-stage nature of the American Political Campaign leads to two very different styles of campaigning, with different goals. The primary is about name recognition, and convincing voters that they should support you. However, when the general election rolls around, the goal changes. You are highly unlikely to change anyone’s mind in the general election, and as such, campaigns are dedicated to convincing as many eligible voters who would support them to turn out. While there are regional variations due to local forces, the above holds in almost any swing state, competitive local race, or Presidential elections. If you want to get involved in politics, local campaigns are almost always desperate for local help, and it can be a great way to get your foot in the door and make the connections that may one day get YOU elected.

44 art by kate b owling

Not Your Baker’s Dough: Money in Our Electoral Process Money Talks by zac emanuel

To understand how money influences politics, you first have to grasp how money gets into politics. In the United States of America, an individual may only donate $2,800 directly to any candidate during any election cycle. They can only give $5,000 to a Political Action Committee (PAC) that donates to candidates. They can give $10,000 to their local, district, or state parties, and $35,000 to the national party. While this might seem like a lot of money, it pales compared to the over $5,000,000,000 (5 BILLION!) spent in the 2016 election cycle alone. These limits on campaign funding are set in order to prevent the wealthy from having an outsized impact on our political process. In some states, this is in addition to public funding for their campaigns. In states like Maine and Arizona, and in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Portland, the majority of politicians finance their campaign with minimal amounts of private funds. Rather, the electoral governing body finances each campaign. With all of these measures in place, how does five billion dollars get spent in the 2016 electoral cycle? The answer can be found in the aftermath and effects of two Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United v. FEC and Speechnow.org v. FEC. These two cases, in conjunction, opened the floodgates of money in our election cycle. The Citizens United decision made it so that corporations could not be limited in its spending on political communication (essentially, that “Money equals speech”) and SpeechNow changed the reporting requirements for certain political spending (making it that certain groups did not need to report donors and donations to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)). To understand how these two cases changed the fate of elections in our age, you have to first begin to learn about the players these cases affected. There are three major-non candidate political spenders: PACs, Super-PACs, and Dark Money. Political Action Committees, or PACs, are typically set up by an organization or corporation to raise money to spend on candidates it favors in elections. They may donate directly to candidates up to $5,000 per election cycle, but other than that, has the same limitations on spending that individuals do. They are also required to report to the FEC who donates, and how much. A Super-PAC is a style of political action committee that arose directly due to the two cases discussed above. As long as they do not directly do not donate to a candidate, and only have “independent-expenditures” (to operate independently from a candidate, without communication, direction, and oversight directly from the candidates), they

have no limit on the amount of funds they can spend, raise, and from who they raise. However, many of these groups are led by former staffers for the candidates they are supporting, and while they may not be directly lead by a candidate, they have inside knowledge on how the candidate thinks, brands themselves, and communicates. They also can communicate indirectly, via the media. There is nothing preventing, for example, a Super-PAC from retweeting the candidate. More egregiously, a candidate saying in an interview that they want to focus their campaign on issues X,Y, and Z, and they want to focus on their opponents record on 3 other issues, and a Super-PAC immediately adopting that as their strategy, is also not against the rules. “Dark-Money” groups are another form of monetary flooding in our electoral process. So named due to the non existent reporting requirements for 501(c)4 “social welfare” and 501(c)6 “Chambers of Commerce” tax exempt groups, the only mitigating factors and laws for these groups political actions is that they are required to only partake in “issue advocacy” and not “political advocacy.” Notable groups that take advantage of 501(c)4 tax status advocates include on the conservative side the NRA, Americans for Prosperity, America First Policies, and on the liberal side, the NAACP, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Planned Parenthood. Ironically, the ninth-largest 501(c)4 in 2018 was Ending Spending. Now that we have an understanding about what these groups are, we can begin to understand the gross amount of money they handle. Between 2000 and 2008, $1.7 billion was spent total by the top 20 PACs, Super-PACs, and 501(c)4 and 6 groups. In 2018 alone, which, as a non-Presidential election year, typically has less spending than the previous electoral cycle, $1.97 billion was spent by the top 20 of these groups. In the same amount of electoral cycles, 20102018 spent over $6 billion total, compared to the above mentioned $1.7 billion. Looking specifically at the 501(c)4/6 groups, the amount of money spent by these groups jumped 5878.43% from 2004 to 2012. There has also been a 600% increase in the number of such groups. But the spending arms race has not just exploded from these PACs and dark money groups.

Overall, spending in elections has skyrocketed when the candidates are factored in too. The amount of overall spending, candidates, included, increased by 79% in the 5 electoral cycles since 2010 compared to the 5 before it. So, you might be asking, why does this matter? Yes, it is a lot of money, but how does that affect you? In short, a variety of ways. First, 90% of the time, the candidate that spends the most money or is supported by the most money, wins their election. The second, is that while quid-pro-quos are illegal in campaign finance, unofficial bribery in does in fact exist. Looking at the report cards Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, and Americans for Tax Reform, one can see that the same groups that make donations and expenditures on behalf or to candidates rates them, endorses them, and expects them to fight for their causes.

¤Ęěū ÓƢüðųū Æs© ťüŢťüūüĹųÓųěŃĹ ěĹ ðŃĹĒťüūūǄ It is how while most Americans support more stringent background checks for gun purchases, NRA backed politicians refuse to move on it. It is how while Climate Change is settled science, fossil fuel backed candidates will be skeptical publicly, and refuse to take meaningful action. You want to know why the opiate crisis took so long to recognize, and Purdue Pharma event was allowed to downplay the addictiveness of their opioids? Look at the $12,000,000 in PAC donations and $27,500,000 spent on lobbying by Big Pharma in the 2018 midterms and 2018 as a year. Gun access? $9,000,000 in the 2018 midterms and $5,000,000 on lobbying by the NRA in 2018. In this day and age, you cannot win a major election without some sort of PAC or fundraising behind you. No money, means no staffers, no advertisements, and no press coverage. It prevents you from getting your name and message out. Therefore, even politicians who argue for more regulated campaign finance still have some measure of support from the very groups they seek to depose. In the same sense the 501(c)4 Ending Spending exists, you have to play the game to win. Moral victories do nothing for your constituents, or problems you seek to solve in office. Therefore even the most ideological pure candidates for the most part take some kind of PAC funding, whether Dark Money or traditional PAC. It is why when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren said they would not take funding from these sources during their Presidential primary campaigns it is newsworthy, as it is significantly more difficult to operate a campaign in this manner. It is also the reason the Democratic National Committee chose to include a set amount of donors required to serve as debate qualifications, in order to force all the candidates to attempt to form a more grass rootscentric campaign. Money dictates our elections, it shapes what we see in advertisements for or about candidates, who we see in elections, and what messages get spread. Know who contributes to or on behalf of your representatives. And keep in mind “Citizens for (your town)” may not actually be citizens of, or for your hometown in actuality. In politics, money talks, and frankly, it can silence everyone else in the room.

art

kat

owl

ing

Election Interference & Political Disruption

American citizens are not the only ones who vote in elections. by chloe hirth

Election interference at its basis involves a disruption in a political election. However, this term encompasses a complex history of foreign election interference in which countries manipulate or infiltrate elections in other political systems. The American Presidential election in 2016 between now President Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fostered national debates and investigations around this exact topic. In July, 2016 before Election Day, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began an inquiry into the connection between Donald Trump’s campaign and officials in Russia. The American House of Representatives and the Senate started their own investigations into Russian interference in the upcoming election, followed by countless debates and speculations from the national media. Though located across the world, Russia became a crucial figure in American conversations surrounding the election at home. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate potential connections between the Trump campaign team and Russia. He ultimately compiled this investigation into the Mueller Report. The Mueller Report found evidence of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, but the report did not find adequate evidence to produce criminal charges against the Trump campaign. Some evidence was missing or incomplete, yet there was still evidence to affirm the presence of Russian interference in the election, much of which benefited Donald Trump. Beginning as early as 2014, Russia targeted American constituents through media campaigns that denigrated Hillary Clinton and supported Donald Trump. These media campaigns were widespread and reached millions of Americans, notably through social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Secondly, the Clinton Presidential campaign was targeted by a Russian intelligence service that worked to release documents that could hurt her Presidential chances. But, why would Russia care about the United States’ Presidential election and its candidates? Russia’s interference in the election was largely weighted towards boosting Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign at the cost of Hillary Clinton’s success. Underlying motivations may have been present, but Russia clearly wanted Donald Trump to be next in line for the highest American office. Since President Trump’s election in 2016, the United States has continued building its relationship with Russia via President Trump and President Putin. Russia has been officially led by Vladimir Putin since 2012 when he began his

art by dani miles

second nonconsecutive term as President. President Putin and President Trump have seemingly developed a close relationship since the beginning of Trumpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presidency. President Trump even congratulated President Putin on his reelection in 2018 in a phone call between the two, even though Russian election interference was being investigated at the time. The two have seemingly remained close since then, despite many critiques.

Okay, so Russiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leaders helped elect President Trump in 2016. So, what now? With the 2020 election approaching, questions concerning foreign election interference are on the rise again. In early 2020, leaders in the United States House of Representatives were briefed on classified information of possible Russian election interference in the upcoming American election. The extent of this interference is still unclear, but it can not be ignored considering the 2016 election interference. Some Congressional leaders claimed that Russia was likely working to enhance President Trumpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reelection campaign, though some other leaders dissented. Similarly to 2016,

Russia may be interested in maintaining a strong relationship with the United States, particularly under the leadership of Donald Trump. With this in mind, it is imperative that American leadership and constituents are extra cautious and aware during the election cycle. The 2020 United States election is already convoluted without foreign intervention, blurring the lines of what is fair and acceptable. The coronavirus pandemic halted many pivotal campaign events and rallies in the election cycle, and the pandemic has simultaneously dominated American minds and media. Yet, the election still persists. Due to the concerns of the pandemic, many Americans have prepared to vote by mail. President Trump, however, has denounced voting by mail and has argued that it will yield unfair or untrue election results. Many Americans have responded to this condemnation with criticism towards the President, meeting him with concern that in person voting will be unsafe; many votes may also be suppressed due to unsafe conditions or lack of access to voting. The 2020 Presidential election also shares complicated similarities to the 2016 election in the power of social media. The 2020 election includes a large pool of younger voters that have grown up in the world of media and technology. Because of this, there are unlimited opportunities to share information to both hurt or help political campaigns, so social media will have a large impact. For instance, many young adults and teenagers credited the social media app TikTok with helping disrupt one of President Trump’s campaign rallies. Young anti–Trump Tiktokers claimed to use the app to tell each other to purchase tickets to Trump’s rally in the hopes that the rally would be unsuccessful. When Trump’s rally occurred and lacked the expected amount of participants, many young Tiktokers boasted their success as a byproduct of the app and fellow Tiktokers. Small social and political movements within the Tiktok app occur on a daily basis, creating a powerful platform for Americans to share political opinions and social commentary. Recently, the app has become a topic of many larger political conversations as President Trump has begun threatening to ban the app due to national security concerns. Whereas the President claims that the app is a threat to American security, many young Tiktokers believe that the app is viewed as a threat to President Trump’s campaign because of the information that is being shared; he may think that the app is a threat to his reelection campaign. Removing or banning apps like Tiktok may not be direct election interference, but in the modern age of social media, doing so is a critical step in silencing many political conversations that could pivot an election. On another hand, media apps can be used to share powerful messages to promote and to benefit campaigns. Campaign advertisements on social media are a large aspect of campaign advertisements. But, all of this media power leads back to the concern of foreign interference. Russian interference in the 2016 election was largely promulgated by the usage of targeted social media in favor of President Trump. A similar effect could potentially be occurring in this election. President Trump and President Putin seemingly have a budding relationship that both leaders may want to maintain, potentially giving a motive for more Russian intervention in this election. As discussed in confidential congressional briefing, there is evidence of Russian interference in the upcoming election which could potentially have an effect on the election. Using social media communication again would be a powerful tool for sharing campaign support for President Trump, similarly to how many young anti–Trump Tiktokers attempted to hurt the campaign. It is unclear how Russia may interfere or to what extent, but it is definitely plausible for the nation to attempt to interfere again. Is election interference possible? Definitely. Should we be concerned about foreign intervention in our election? To an extent, certainly. Most importantly, though, American voters must focus on getting their voices heard and making sure that their votes are in. Regardless of where you sit in the political aisle, the 2020 political election will be an event for the history books.

Courting Misfortune

JŃƏ ƕŃŸť ƎŃųü ÓƢüðųū ųĘü ðŃŸťų ūƕūųüĸǄ by arjun joshi We know what the implications this election will have for our healthcare, civil rights, and environmental regulations– but the congressional debates and executive orders surrounding these topics distract us from the body that will have the most impact on these issues: The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is comprised of nine justices, each of whom is nominated by the President and voted on by the Senate after a stretch of hearings and review of their record. The Trump Administration nominated two conservative justices to fill the seats of the deceased Antonin Scalia and retired Anthony Kennedy, with Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh occupying those seats today. While liberals expected these two to be staunch pro–Trump conservatives on the bench, as of today the court has voted in favor of protections for LGBTQ+ employees in the workplace, while ceding some abortion protections granted by the Roe V. Wade ruling. While it hasn’t all been good news, the sloppy paperwork and fatuous legal reasoning by the Trump Administration has prevented the conservatives on the bench from voting furthering the President’s agenda. These victories unfortunately may prove fleeting, as they hinge on the health and age of the liberal–leaning justices of the court on the libertarian tendencies of the conservative Gorsuch. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health has been an ongoing story throughout this administration, with the 87-year-old battling cancer and missing oral arguments in 2018 after a fall where she broke three ribs. Bader Ginsburg’s workout routine and diet could put Tom Brady’s TB12 regimen to shame, but considering how many rulings over the last few years have been 5–4 verdicts, Ginsburg’s age weighs heavily on not only policy decisions by the court, but the upcoming election, as this next term is almost guaranteed to choose her successor. In addition to the upstream effects of our vote in affecting the court, we have to think about how our own vote is affected by the court and its rulings. As we’ve seen in North Carolina – among many other states – , state legislatures dominated by the Republican Party have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the electoral map to suit their needs, with minorities being heavily concentrated in specific districts or scattered to the point where their vote doesn’t matter anymore. When North Carolina Democrats challenged the maps in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, the court voted 5–4 that such questions were “beyond the power of the federal courts.” While the state court ruled the maps invalid, you can see how the Supreme Court has an appreciable impact on our capacity to vote; if they choose not to get involved, other state courts may not be so generous.

This election is not just about the Presidency or who will represent us in Congress. With Ruth Bader–Ginsburg and Breyer in their 80s, the next two Presidential terms are more imperative than ever in shaping the outlook of the Supreme Court, and with it the constitutionality of protections on our healthcare, on civil rights for our LGBTQ+ comrades, and even how effective our vote will be for years to come. Your vote isn’t just to defeat Donald Trump, but to protect the integrity of the court.

art by anam faruqi

A Vote for Trans Women’s Rights

A case study on the impacts of the Supreme Court. by gia ariola

On July 28, Nikki Stone was brutally pulled off her skateboard and shoved into an unmarked van during a New York City protest. Nikki was physically accosted by cops not wearing masks and forced to spend the night in police custody. As an 18-year-old transgender woman, this was not the first time Nikki feared for her safety; her mother recently relocated her family from Dallas because of Texas’s “highly conservative” environment that she deemed unsafe. Today, Nikki is experiencing homelessness in NYC, and her reality is not an anomaly. Transgender women have been excluded from mainstream society, the feminist movement, and denied basic rights for the entirety of American history. The exclusion of trans women from the feminist movement promotes the idea that there is a correct way to be a woman, one that ignores the multidimensionality of femininity. The female experience is by no means a linear one; a woman’s experiences vary drastically across race, socioeconomic status, family life, and many other factors. If we continue not to recognize this and only advocate for groups who enjoy proper representation in mainstream society, then the experiences of wealthy, white, cis–gendered, able–bodied women will act as the benchmark for the female experience. This group, myself included, has had more than our fair share of social privilege at the expense of other women.

Growing up, children are constantly categorized and placed into boxes according to their gender. If you stray from dressing or acting like your assigned gender, you are constantly asked why you can’t “be more like the other girls” or to “toughen up and be a man.” This harmful language pushes children into strict labels and allows for unwarranted pushback when it comes to expressing norms of the opposite gender. Today, transgender women not only continue to experience this societal–imposed shame, but are also the victims of hate crimes and murder. Selena Reyes– Hernandez, Monika Diamond, Johanna Metzger, and Layla Pelaez Sánchez are among some of the innocent women who have been killed and persecuted solely for being themselves. Why do we applaud straight men in transgender roles (Eddie Redmayne as Lili Elbe, Jared Leto as Rayon, etc.) but are unaccepting of real–life transgender women offscreen? These women do not ask for the same attention and praise as movie stars, but for the bare minimum: to live in peace. Instead, the U.S. treats them with the denial of basic human rights, such as access to healthcare and social services, proper gender identification on legal documents, and housing due to their gender identities. 30% of transgender individuals have experienced discrimination in the workplace for their gender identities, creating a lack of employment opportunities that has led to increased

art by kate bowling

levels of poverty within the trans community and thus less access to gender–affirming health care and housing. This fatal discrimination and violence disproportionately affects transgender women of color, particularly Black transgender women, who have experienced approximately 4 in 5 of all anti– transgender homicides. 2020 has devastatingly already seen violent deaths of 25 reported transgender or gender non–conforming individuals. To overcome anti–transgender stigma and violence, we must change the language we use with children and advocate for more transgender women in executive positions to act as powerful and creative influences on girls. Using phrases like tomboy and girly girl perpetuates the cycle of toxic masculinity, infringes on the notion of personal freedom and expression, and harmfully rejects the concept of gender fluidity. Who would want to express their true identities if they believe it could be met with disdain and even death? Eliminating this language encourages inclusive gender expression practices and can reduce the number of transgender youth being mocked by their families for their identities. If the U.S. was more accepting of our trans youth, Nikki Stone’s mother might not have felt the need to relocate to a city where her daughter was violently treated by the police. Also, transgender women in positions of power and leading policy changes, NGOs, media conglomerates, and more can change the perceptions about the qualities necessary to hold leadership positions and dismantle anti–trans societal barriers.

We all have a chance to directly influence the transgender experience in the U.S. In November, vote for a Presidential candidate who will nominate a Supreme Court Justice to vote in favor of trans rights. Although the current 5–4 conservative majority recently voted to protect gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination on June 15 and has voted with public opinion in most major cases this term, the Trump administration has an ugly history of reversing important trans rights rulings. In 2017, Trump revoked a landmark ruling that allowed schools to let transgender students use the bathroom of their choice. The current administration also introduced the Civil Rights Uniformity Act that attempted to limit gender identity to biological assignation and block transgender individuals from federal civil rights protections. Although the Supreme Court has recently voted in favor of protecting trans rights, it is clear there are still many representatives, including the President, who would vote otherwise. The estimated 20–40% of the 1.6 million homeless transgender youth kicked out of their homes due to their gender identities could either increase or decrease due to future SCOTUS decisions. Don’t leave the fates of some of the country’s most vulnerable in the hands of a Justice who won’t vote to protect them. It is time to include transgender women in the feminist movement and interrupts exclusionary patterns of white feminism. All women are beautiful creatures and deserve to feel the incredible power of womanhood and be able to cultivate relationships with other women just on the basis of femininity. The process of self–discovery is traumatic enough– stop judging and punishing people for figuring out who they are and start praising the bravery and courageousness of the transgender journey. Dismantle this country’s culture of violence against things it chooses not to understand. Challenge children’s expected gender norms. Question corporations and institutions which do not advocate for a trans–inclusive workplace and call them out. Do not vote for a racist, sexist, and transphobic bigot who only recognizes “biological sex” and works to overturn transgender health protections. Women are doing their best to survive and thrive in the patriarchy America has deemed inclusive; don’t deny transgender and gender–nonconforming women the right to live because our classification system falls short.

ECONOMY Trump’s economic strategies included boosting economic growth with the use of tax cuts and addition-

Rollbacks in business and personal tax rates delivered minimal boost to wages. Federal Reserve Chair has projected that GDP under the Trump Administration would contract by a staggering 6.5 percent this year and that the unemployment rate will still be above 9 percent for some time.

HEALTHCARE repeal of Obamacare (ACA) by passing the American Health Care Act to reduce government involvement in health insurance market. Eliminate the ACA’s “individual mandate” and make cuts to Medicaid, uninsuring 23 million Americans. Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act during the pandemic.

FOREIGN POLICY Impeached for having asked foreign leaders to interfere with the 2016 election and was under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for potential. Collusion with Russian interference in the 2016 election Pursued funding for a US-Mexico border wall. Commenced US-China trade war and withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Agreement.

COVID-19 Referred to the virus as a hoax, discredited scientists, discouraged mask use, pressured states to open economies early. Withdrew from the World Health Organization.

ECONOMY Aims to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour. Aims to impose a 15% minimum tax on corporations increasing capital gains tax for those with over $1 million in yearly income. Proposed spending trillions to create new jobs.

HEALTHCARE Will make health insurance more affordable – guaranteeing that no family spends more than 8.5% of their income on premiums – and lower prescription drug costs. Aims to give every American access to affordable health insurance by providing a public health insurance options similar to Medicare. He’ll double funding for communit y health centers, on the frontlines of care.

FOREIGN POLICY Will pursue an extension of the New START Treaty, an anchor of strategic stability between the United States and Russia, and use that as a foundation for new arms control arrangements. Coordinated campaign with our allies and others, including China, to advance our shared objective of a denuclearized North Korea.

l ole k

y nic

art b ein

Aims to renew American leadership to mobilize the world to overcome the threats of our time, from nuclear proliferation and terrorism to climate change and a deadly pandemic.

COVID-19 Biden will provide ever yone with free Covid testing, treatment, vaccines, and get frontline workers PPE and sick leave. His Build Back Better plan opts to put people to work

EDUCATION

Wants to shift the control of education to states by reducing or eliminating the Department of Education.

Wants to implement universal Pre-K.

Increased protection of those accused of sexual harassment. Looks at education reform similarly to a “free-market approach” in which the students/families are equated to “customers”.

CLIMATE CHANGE Withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. Dismantled most of the major climate and environmental policies, calling the rules unnecessary and burdensome to the fossil fuel industry.

Provide four years of free public college for families making less than $125K a year and forgive most public school student loan debts. Plans to increase school funding and teacher salaries.

CLIMATE CHANGE He’ll rejoin the Paris Accord on Day One, and push other nations to do more. Hold polluters accountable for the disproportionate harm they’ve done to communities of color by taxing carbon emissions.

Working to decrease the Clean Power Plan and ending the moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands.

Will invest record amounts in building a 100% cleanenergy economy and exploring nuclear power– creating millions of good-paying jobs.

GUN RIGHTS

Adamant about protecting American’s Second Amendment Rights.

Aims to establish a national buyback program where those who already own an assault weapon or high capacity magazine have the option to sell them back to the government or register the weapon under the National Firearms Act.

The NRA, which had invested $30 million into Trump's 2016 election campaign successfully lobbied Trump against new gun control measures.

WOMEN’S HEALTH + REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS A new conservative majority on the Supreme Court has ushered anti-abortion lawmakers and activists in numerous states to pass restrictive abortion policies in the nation with the strategic intent to overturn Roe vs Wade. Aims to defund Planned Parenthood. Dismantled Title X which focuses on affordable birth control and reproductive health care.

LGBTQ+ Overall opposed transgender freedoms: policy says anyone with “gender dysphoria” who is taking hormones or has already undergone a gender transition will not be allowed to enlist in the military, reversed protections to allow for insurance discrimination against transition services, reversed mandate that made sure transgender individuals have access to medical and psychological care.

WOMEN’S HEALTH + REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Biden will work to codify Roe v. Wade and work to prevent states’ laws to reverse its effects. Biden will reissue guidance specifying that states cannot refuse Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other providers and reverse the Trump Administration’s rule preventing these organizations from obtaining Title X funds.

LGBTQ+ Aims to pass and sign the Equalit y Act to protect LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination under civil rights law – safeguarding access to housing, health care, work, school, credit, and public services, among other things.

Where do YOU stand?

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

Platforms & Policy

What issues/platform points do you care most about?

LGBTQ+ Rights

Foreign Policy

National Debt

Women’s Sexual Health Rights

Immigration

Education

Gun Control

Criminal Justice Reform

Fiscal

Climate Change

Student Debt

Healthcare

What matters to us? Biden has a reputation for not being liberal enough for Gen Z voters – and subsequently a portion of Gen Z’ers want to abstain from voting in this election. What’s the sentiment? When you vote during a president election, you are not just voting for the president. You are voting for Supreme Court justice leaders, cabinet picks, etc. It adds up. And right now, I would like to believe Joe Biden will surround himself with a good team that will fulfill necessary roles. I know he isn’t the perfect president who will create a harmonious society, but at least it is a step in the direction away from Trump’s racist, bigot, ignorant, hateful, cruel administration.

Izzy Gatti No president is perfect, albeit Biden is a far from perfect candidate. He is, however, far more progressive that Trump, and not voting on account of that is self-sabotage.

Moderates get more progressive policies passed than liberals. He’ll get more done than Bernie or Warren could’ve. Zac Emanuel

Biden is not Trump and we should pressure him to appease our concerns. Alicia Novoa

It’s important so that republicans vote for him. Mara Lorin

Anonymous There’s a lot wrong with Biden, but there is too much at stake to let Trump remain in office for another term. Biden may not be the ultra progressive candidate that we wanted, but at the very least, a Biden administration will be much easier to pressure toward progressive change than the orange fascist.

Freddy Rio

Biden is being voted in not because of his policy. But because his presidency is the end of trumps. His liberalism or lack there of isn’t a factor of concern.

Anonymous

art by kate bowling

The Electoral College Which Votes Matter? by reeve berlinberg

I want to take you back to November 9, 2016, the morning after the 58th Presidential election. I was seventeen, filled with rage that I was unable to vote. Growing up in liberal Portland, Oregon, I found the possibility of Donald Trump getting elected a fanciful notion and was unable to process that it was now my new reality. As I walked into my AP US Government class, I could tell that the rest of the students shared the same sentiment. My teacher, an obvious liberal, decided to pause instruction for the day and allow us to wallow for the rest of the period. My rage would soon turn to confusion.

Back in 1787, the Founding Fathers were having a very difficult time deciding how a President should be elected. Some thought it should be Congress’s decision to elect a President while others said it should be the role of the people. The framers, most notably James Madison, were fearful of political factions and were not confident that the general public would make informed decisions when voting. The concerns of the framers remain true to this day when we have seen some voters blatantly disregard fact. Other framers wanted to ensure states with larger populations did not decide the election.

In the days that followed, I kept hearing sound bites like “Hillary actually won the election because she won the popular vote” or “Trump just won the electoral vote” and “How is it possible that Hillary got more votes but lost?” In fact, a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the presidency has occurred four times prior to 2016. Why you may ask? Short answer, it is thanks to our Founding Fathers and a system they invented called the Electoral College. Get ready for another line in our constitution that has caused quite a bit of strife.

After months and months of discussion, they decided on a solution as old as time, a compromise. This compromise was the Electoral College. To break it down, the Electoral College is a group of people selected to cast votes on behalf of their entire state. It is a 1 to 1 system based on the number of legislators in your state. So, for instance, each state receives 2 electoral votes to represent their 2 U.S. senators plus additional electors for each U.S. representative from the state. In order for a candidate to win the presidency, they must receive a total of 270 electoral votes.

My home state of Oregon gets 7 electoral votes because we have 2 senators and 5 representatives. California, a much larger state, has 55 electoral votes. Conversely, Wyoming, which has a very small population, has only 3 electoral votes. Based on the population in each state, this means that every Wyoming voter’s decision has 3 ½ times the influence of one California voter. Wait? Do those selected people vote according to their own beliefs? No! Whoever wins the majority of the votes in the state mandates how all the electors vote. Our winner takes all system is why so many Presidential candidates focus their campaigning in large states like Florida with 29 electoral votes, Texas with 38, and New York with 29. If a candidate wins in those 3 places, they already have 96 electoral votes. So even if a candidate wins the popular vote, they can fail to gain the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. A candidate who is able to gain electoral votes in larger states will likely win the election. So, some argue that the electoral college system gives an unfair advantage to candidates who win larger states– failing to achieve the Founders’ goal to give all states big and small equal representation. However, others refute that argument because in close elections every single electoral vote counts. Why other than to pass a test in a civics class should you care about these intricate details? Because you have been lied to. We do not live in a real democracy. We actually live in a federal Presidential constitutional republic. The weight of your vote in the Presidential election differs based on where you vote! Insert *gasps*, insert *screams*, insert *confused faces*. Considering that all electors (besides Maine and Nebraska) must vote based on the majority in your state, candidates can often–times determine if they will win or lose in a state prior to the beginning of their campaign. The history of how your state has voted allows political pundits to characterize it as a safe or swing state. If a state has a history of voting for a particular party in the last four Presidential elections it is a safe state. States that have switched their electoral votes in the last several elections are deemed “swing states.” Swing states are sadly much more important to candidates because they have the possibility to convince people to vote in their favour.

To be frank, if you are a Democrat in Alabama or Mississippi voting in a Federal election you are screwed, and if you are a Republican in Oregon or Massachusetts you are also out of luck. And despite the multitude of Instagram stories on your feed that tell you to “JUST VOTE” as if it will solve all our problems, they are wrong if you live in a predetermined state. However, this is not to discourage political participation. Traditional Red and Blue states are not homogeneous throughout–for example, Orange County, CA Republicans and Democrats in Austin, TX. While we may not always have an influence over Federal elections, we can control our local representation. My intention is not to be the bearer of bad news but to be realistic. I expect each and every one of you to vote on November 3rd but recognize that your vote does not carry the weight you thought. I wrote this article because I believe we place too much emphasis on the power of the President and forget about the little folks like our senators, representatives, governors, mayors, all the way down to our school board directors. Those positions matter and so do your votes! Everything from the legalization of marijuana, housing and homeless policy, education funding and investment, to abolishing the death penalty is decided in state elections. Not to forget it is up to our local officials to curb the spread of COVID-19 in our communities. They say voting is power but even more so is knowing what exactly you are voting for. I used to think the only people who cared about local elections were those 65 and older with too much time on their hands. However, 2020 is our year to show up at the polls not just for the President but for all positions, because not only does your vote count more, but also those officials hold power. As I write this, my Governor of Oregon was able to negotiate with Homeland Security to get unmarked federal troops off my city’s streets. Now go register, go read, and go vote.

art by

kate b

owlin

Voter Suppression The privilege of a vote. by sequoia smith

Voting is the most fundamental part of democracy. It is important to acknowledge that even though voting is the foundation of any functioning democracy, the United States of America has a long history of suppressing the right to vote. It was not until 1870 that the fifteenth amendment gave Black men the right to vote. Even though legally Black men had the right to vote, states across the country implemented different tactics to inhibit that right. One of the most common tactics in the south was the grandfather clause. The grandfather clause was a rule that if you or your family had the right to vote before 1867 you were exempt from voting requirements such as literacy tests, property ownership requirements, and/or poll taxes. Of course, since Black people were not allowed to vote until 1870, they did not qualify and were forced to take literacy tests and/ or pay poll taxes. Poll taxes were voting fees that you had to pay before you were able to vote. They gained popularity after the Reconstruction Era because Black people had gained political power and white southerners were disgusted by it. By making Black Americans pay poll taxes it meant that millions of them were disenfranchised because they simply could not afford the tax. The practice of poll taxes occurred up until 1964 when they were outlawed by the twenty–fourth amendment. In addition to the poll taxes, many states also required Black Americans to take and pass a literacy test before voting. These were designed to disenfranchise Black Americans by wording the tests weirdly, asking obscure questions, enforcing short time limits, and much more. Many of these discriminatory practices were used up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed voter disenfranchisement based on race, Black and Brown Americans still face

disproportionate disenfranchisement to this day. While legal scholars will argue that the Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, did not create the problem of voter disenfranchisement, it definitely laid the foundation for voter suppression post–Voting Rights Act of 1965. The U.S. Supreme Court Case, Shelby County v. Holder, is a case about the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Shelby County of Alabama brought a lawsuit against then Attorney General, Eric Holder, arguing that the 4th and 5th clauses of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were unconstitutional. The fifth clause of the Voting Rights Act barred certain districts from changing any of their voting laws without receiving federal clearance. The fourth clause outlines the criteria for which districts were required to undergo federal preclearance. The criteria for federal preclearance was if a district had discriminatory voting tests pre–Voting Rights Act and had less than a 50% turnout for the 1964 Presidential election. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional therefore gutting section five due to the lack of criteria that was needed to enforce section 5. The result of this decision led to a strong influx of voter suppression. Jurisdictions that were tied to preclearance by the Federal government:

“on average federal preclearance jurisdictions shut down 20% more polling stations per capita than jurisdictions in the rest of the country.”

art by kate bowling

Although there are several legitimate reasons for shutting down polling stations, Vice News discovered that for every 10 polling places that closed across the country, 13 closed within the districts with federal preclearance rules. Along with mass closings of poll stations many states that were under federal preclearance rules also have voter ID laws, limits on early voting, and a ban on sameâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; day registration which greatly impacts voter turnout, specifically voter turnout across communities of color. Although voter suppression laws were nothing new when the Supreme Court ruled on this case, it laid the foundation for the normalization of voter suppression, especifically gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the act of redrawing congressional district lines to favor one political party over the other. Although both major political parties participate in gerrymandering, it almost always greatly favors the GOP. After the historic win of Barack Obama in 2008, the Democrats controlled the legislative and executive branches. The GOP came to the conclusion that if they were going to have a chance at regaining their control in Congress, they would need to redraw district lines to benefit their party. The Republican State Leadership Committee launched an initiative referred to as REDMAP, to take back their political power. REDMAP poured $30 million dollars into state races across the country to ensure victory for Republicans nationwide.

After the 2010 midterms, Republicans gained unilateral control of 11 state legislatures, which resulted in increasing their total number to 25 state legislatures. The purpose of flipping state legislatures across the country was to have control over the redistricting process that happens the year after the Census. Republicans used their newfound power to re– draw such skewed maps that in 2012, Pennsylvania’s Democratic congressional candidates received 100,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet Republicans won 13 of the 18 seats. That means the minority party received almost 75% of the Congressional seats up for grabs. Pennsylvania’s lack of proportional representation in the 2012 midterm election is just one illustration of how the GOP undermined our democracy; it does not stop there. Gerrymandering is a popular way to greatly influence the American electorate, but it is not the only way that elected officials interfere with our political process. Every state, except Maine and Vermont, bans prisoners from voting. Ten states bar you from voting for life if convicted of certain crimes. Sixteen states bar you from voting until your sentence is served including probation or parole. These types of laws are nothing new to America’s political landscape. In 1840, four states had felony disenfranchisement laws but by the civil war, that number jumped to twenty–four. Once the civil war ended there was a string of events that led to a drastic spike in laws restricting voting, the biggest being the Black codes, which were a group of laws that criminalized Black people to ensure the continuance of free labor. It’s no coincidence that the same year that the fifteenth amendment was ratified over half of the United States had some form of felony disenfranchisement law. As time has gone on, it has only become clearer how badly felony disenfranchisement laws target Black and Brown Americans. In 2016, one in thirteen Black Americans of voting age were disenfranchised. Over seven percent of Black adults were disenfranchised compared to less than two percent of non–Black adults. It is estimated that over six million Americans have lost the right to vote. In Iowa, once you are convicted of a felony you are barred from voting for the rest of your life unless you successfully apply to the governor for the restoration of your voting rights. This law impacted almost 10% of the Black population in Iowa. There is some good news though, as of June 17, 2020, the governor, Kim Reynolds has committed to restoring some voting rights to convicted felons. Although it might seem like restricting people’s votes as a punishment is a valid consequence for violating the social contract of our society, it is not. It is easy to dehumanize prisoners and say they do not have the right to vote because they did something bad, but one must remember that voting is not a privilege that you can lose – it’s a right. What kind of country are we if we do not allow people to voice their opinions no matter what? A founding premise of our country was no taxation without representation. If we are going to make people pay taxes but not allow them to vote on what is happening in our country then we are not a democracy.

It is time for the United States of America to truly embrace the democratic ideals of proportional representation and voting as a right, not a privilege. Once our government treats voting as a right instead of a privilege I believe that if our government upheld our fundamental rights voter turnout would skyrocket, and people would feel a sense of duty to participate in our political process.

art by sadie paczosa

The Importance of Local Elections

National Politics = Culture. Local Politics = Action. by katie abrams Do you ever feel disappointed when reading about our current political system? Our nation is more divided than ever; we are living through a global pandemic, mass protests are occurring around the country, and you can’t forget the murder hornets! With all that is happening you may ask how politics could be part of the solution? The answer is local elections. When we think of power and action in our government system, we turn our head to the top of the food chain –the President. Yet, our day to day lives are governed and influenced by local power. Local politics have been erased from our periphery. Only 0.5% of all internet traffic goes to sites covering local news and politics. It’s no wonder we glaze over the importance of local representation. In the United States, there are 19,429 municipal governments. Municipal governments are broadly defined as the governments of cities, towns, boroughs, villages, and townships. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution separates the powers of the federal government and the states. This separation is crucial to municipal governments, because they primarily serve their communities addressing the day to day necessities of life. Municipal governments are responsible for local police departments, libraries, transportation, and infrastructure– just to name a few. During the 2020 election cycle, there is one Presidential race. However, a total of 470 Congressional Races are occurring. In the United States, our Congress is composed of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In November, all 435 Representatives in the House are up for reelection, as well as 30 members of the

Senate. Beyond that, we’re facing thousands of local elections. The reality of our federal government is that no President can represent every citizen in the nation to their satisfaction– that is what local elections are for. Your local representatives are there to represent you, your values, and your ideals. If you do not elect people who represent you, who is your advocate? Think of local politics as a microcosm of national politics, but rather than deciding overarching laws and guidelines for the country, applying those rules and regulations to your individual community. If you have an issue with the police in your town, would the United States Attorney General called? No. Rather the District Attorney would get involved. If you have a problem with politics, sometimes the best way to create real and tangible change is through local government because of their specialized capacity to focus specifically on what residents need. We typically believe that the President is who determines the fate of our politics and policies. However, if you accept the status quo without voting– both locally and nationally–, you are giving up your voice. It is not impossible to have government elected officials who accurately represent you. You never know how the game is going to end, so why throw in the towel early. In 2010, Lisa Murkowski (R– AK) did the seemingly unachievable when she won her Alaska Senate race. She was initially defeated in the primary, yet in order to prevail, Murkowski ran one of the most successful grassroots campaigns– winning the election by obtaining enough write–in votes. Her name was not even on the ballot. This is proof that we can fight for what we believe in, and win.

Since the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement following the death of George Floyd in May, we have seen just how effective local activism can be. For many, the incident in Minneapolis serves as a reminder of the systemic racism so prevalent in America; however, the resulting outcry has created change in individual cities. As a result of the protests, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Portland, Philadelphia, Hartford, and Seattle have already reevaluated the funding allocated to police departments– with San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, New York, and more calling for changes. Although it is fair to be upset by the lack of national change, it is encouraging to know that within our communities there are still opportunities for actionable change through local politics. Countless municipal elections are scheduled for this upcoming cycle. Yet, when it comes to elections, most people only think of national elections. In fact, when it comes to voting in the average municipal election only 27% of ALL eligible people vote. We live in a world where so many young people have grown up watching life–long politicians dominate our election cycle, and the political world– even if they reflect outdated ideologies. That is why it is important not to forget local elections! If you do not like your Mayor, your Representatives, or your Senator; vote them out. Continuing to elect officials whose only goal is to be re–elected creates a negative cycle of complacency. Those elected to represent you, should be representing you! Not the GOP or DNC, not the NRA or oil industry, or Big Pharma. By continuing to elect people who have shown an astounding level of complacency and complicity by neglecting to represent constituents over financial lobbying, we are aiding the fall of our democracy– watching the integrity and respect of political offices being torn down. If you dislike career politicians, or dislike anything about the current political system, you really do have the power to create change. That is why every vote in every election, not just during a Presidential election, is crucial to a functioning democracy. If you are upset about what is happening in politics, vote out people who do not represent you.

In 2020, there are 7 vulnerable Republican Senate seats that if flipped would change the power dynamic of Congress. Those elections are just as necessary to show up for because like the power of local elections influencing your day–to–day community life, Congressional elections help to ensure representation in federal lawmaking.

Ńƿ ƏĘÓų öŃüū ěų ĸüÓĹ ųŃ ǝƦěŢǞ a Congressional seat? Imagine a map of the country, states that historically vote Republican shown in red, and Democratic voting states in blue– not every state on the map would be filled in. Some states are what we call swing states. Being a swing state means almost what it sounds like, the state swings back and forth between voting red and blue, depending on the candidate and the election. It is these states that are the battleground for the election. Whether or not you live in a swing state, your vote matters. Your vote is the voice you are given to sing praises or voice dissent. Each vote you cast is crucial in helping your local, state, and national communities reflect the vision that you as an individual have. Elect people who will do the right thing because it is what their constituents deserve, regardless of political fallout. Regardless of what party you affiliate with, the most crucial aspect of elections is to vote for candidates who YOU are motivated by. Let me say that again, who YOU, individually, support. Not your parents, or grandparents, or ministers, or rabbis, or friends! Without electing those who represent you and the issues you care about, it is discouraging to engage in politics. As a citizen of the United States– whether you are politically active or not, and regardless of your political beliefs– as a democracy it is your privilege and right to be able to cast a vote. Do not take that for granted. Work to make every neighborhood you inhabit the best version possible, remove people from all levels of office who are working against your goals. Acknowledge your rights. Use your voice.

VOTE FOR: Mayors City Council Members District Attorneys County Sheriff & County Attorney Governor & Lieutenant Governor State Representatives County Commissioners Secretary of State State and County Auditor Vulnerable Senate Seats in the 2020 Election Cycle* Doug Jones (D–Alabama) Gary Peters (D– Michigan) Cory Gardner (R–Colorado) Susan Collins (R–Maine) Thom Tillis (R– North Carolina) Martha McSally (R–Arizona) Steve Daines (R–Montana) David Perdue (R–Georgia) Kelly Loeffler (R–Georgia) *Note that all show the current incumbent meaning the current democrats have to retain their seats in addition to flipping the current republican seats.

THE US GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTION LEGISLATIVE

EXECUTIVE

JUDICIAL

CONGRESS

PRESIDENT

SUPREME COURT

SENATE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES

CABINET

COURT OF APPEALS US DISTRICT COURTS

LEGISLATURE SENATE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES

GOVENOR

STATE COURT SYSTEM

LIEUTENANT DEPARTMENTS/ GOVERNMENT COMISSIONERS

SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT COURT

CITY COUNCIL AND/OR BOUROUGH ASSEMBLY

MAYOR

MAGISTRATE

DEPUTY MAYOR DEPARTMENTS

Why I’m Voting for Trump And so should you! by nate odenkirk I, personally, find Mr. Trump rude and unhinged. Like millions of other Americans, I have looked on in horror as he destroys the government from within and sews discord throughout the country. That, in a nutshell, is precisely why he should be reelected.

art by nicole klein

It is unfair to expect Joe Biden to clean up a mess that Donald Trump started. If anything, Trump should remain in office until he gets his act together, however long that may take. If we give him another four years, he’ll have the time he needs to reverse course and reflect on his shortcomings as a leader. If we simply give up on Trump, we are signaling to our young children and old men that they can stink up the place and then leave. Not in my America! I believe in the “you break it, you buy it principle. And if he makes the same mistakes again, well, tough luck buddy: he’ll just have to be reelected once more. I think Biden is a competent public servant who would make a good president. His time to make mistakes—and he has made many—has passed. Instead, Trump has positioned himself to put out literally hundreds of fires in a second term. I’m sure this is by design. In a stroke of strategic genius, the sheer magnitude and volume of the president’s mistakes have virtually sealed his re-election prospects. If you look at the polls upside down, he appears to be on a glide path to the presidency once more. Trump has made a mess. This November, voters will forcefully tell Trump: clean up that mess!

Nate Odenkirk is a head writer at The Inquirist Magazine. He has contributed to The New Yorker and The Onion.

LET’S F*CKING VOTE This tool–kit is an organizing resource for students who are interested in improving civic engagement on their own campuses but don’t know where to start. We are here to make civic engagement and participation more accessible by meeting students where they are at. By following the simple steps below, any student can enact change by catalyzing their community. This tool–kit provides information on how to get to the polls (or mailbox) and how to bring others with you!

DID YOU KNOW THAT IN THE...

2014 MIDTERM ELECTIONS

2018 MIDTERM ELECTIONS

OF VOTING ELIGIBLE YOUTH (18–29 Y/O)

SHOWED UP TO THE POLLS

The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement [CIRCLE]

21% 28% The 2018 youth voter turnout is the highest percentage of youth voter participation in the last 25 years

WITH GREATER YOUTH PARTICIPATION, WE SAW UNPREDENCEDTED DIVERSITY IN THE 116TH CONGRESS Edmondson and Lee, 2019

SO, FIRST THINGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S FIRST...

TIP: TRY ALL

POSSIBLE EMAIL ADDRESSES

ARE YOU REGISTERED TO VOTE? YES

DOPE!

ARE YOU OUT OF STATE?

NOT SURE?

If you go to school out of state, make sure to request your absentee ballot

Check your registration status

https://www.vote.org/absentee-ballot/

https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/

HOST YOUR OWN VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVE Now that you are registered to vote, here are simple steps to help other students do the same:

Create voter registration posters to hang around your campus, dorms and neighborhoods

TIP: WHEN MAKING POSTERS, FOCUS ON DEMOGRAPHIC

Include our QR code that takes you to vote.orgâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s information center

@danimiles @danimilesstudio

If you donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to create your own poster, no worries! Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve done it for you:

Simply print these out from www.GEN-ZiNE.com/vote and post them around!

Hold voter registration drives on or off campus Set up a table in areas with plenty of foot traffic and stock them with your QR code-voter registration posters so new voters can come and scan +++ Partner with local businesses to hold a registration event out of their space

Dear [ ], I hope this email finds you well. My name is [ ] and I am a current undergraduate student at [ ]. I am looking to partner with a venue to host a bipartisan voter registration drive to make voter registration more accessible for students and meet them where they are at; I thought your establishment would be the perfect fit as it is a hub for the student body.

Here is an email template you can use to contact businesses:

Again, the event is bipartisan and we are not looking to take any proceeds from the event. What we are really looking for is to bring in big business for you guys through promotion in hopes of registering new voters! If you are interested in partnering with us for the event, please reach out for more information. Thank you for your time and consideration! Best, [ ]

WE’RE NOT DONE YET! Here are some more opportunities to continue taking action @ https://www.mobilize.us/?per_page=25&show_all_events=true

IMPORTANT DATES: To keep up with upcoming election news, visit this 50 state inclusive guide @ https://www.commit2eight.com/voting-resources

Click on your state to discover state-specific voting dates, ballot information, and voting regulations SPECIAL THANKS TO: Daniela Miles for her voter registration poster designs @ https://danielamiles.com/ COMMIT2EIGHT for the Voter Resources Nikki Cohen and Chloe Keywell for the content and design of the toolkit Gen-Zine for distribution

NOW GO OUT AND VOTE!

dne

ron colo

art by aa

From the Sidelines to the Field

How to Go from Advocating and Protesting to Working for Candidates YOU Believe In by zac emanuel Political involvement skews older, whiter, and wealthier than our generation. When I was in high school, from 2013–2017, political engagement was viewed as a novelty, or a hobby for most of it. I loved history, but I wanted to try and make it, rather than read about it. However, I noticed a change during the 2016 Presidential cycle. The rhetoric and the policies that framed the 2016 cycle and the Donald Trump presidency, whatever your personal views of them are, have one absolute positive. They galvanized an entire generation, our generation, into being politically aware. Between the “Hope” and “Change” of our youth contrasting with the “Make America Great Again,” to being the “School–Shooting” generation, the American youth, left, right and center, have established a political mindset for themselves, and even more importantly, have begun acting on those beliefs. Over the summer of 2019, I was at a debate watch party where friends and I were playing drinking games based off of debate answers– somewhere I never would have imagined myself. Simultaneously I was having conversations over text, Snapchat, and Instagram with friends about our thoughts on the debate and the candidates.

For many in our generation, having grown up alongside social media, using our socials to raise awareness, call out our representation, or express our thoughts is second nature. Instagram stories in particular in my experience, have become the home

to many of my friends, and our colleagues, political and personal expressions, a statement of our values. Protests and marches as well have grown in popularity among our generation. For many, that may be enough. However, if you’re sitting, reading on your phone, whether this article, or whatever breaking news about the 2020 election cycle, just broke and want to do more, there are plenty of opportunities to do so.

Local Elections The easiest way to get involved and get your hands dirty is to volunteer in a local election. While not as glamorous and sexy as Presidential races or senatorial campaigns, your local school board candidates, or your city council candidates still need people to help them run. Whether you shoot them an email, or show up to an office in person, many candidates in smaller races do not have the budget to have a large campaign staff, and are desperate to make the most of what money they do have. The plus’s, besides involvement in our own democracy, can have a great upside. A smaller, local race means you can have more facetime with your candidate, which could lead to many positives, from getting to know them personally, to getting a letter of recommendation, to having something to put on your resume. Furthermore, many smaller races feature younger candidates just starting their political careers. The phone number of your city council rep may become the phone number for your mayor, who could become your governor, etc.

These lower–level elections are also how you get the training and experience larger races look for in both those who are employed by the campaigns, or volunteer for them. Your first brush with “stereotypical” campaigning, canvassing and phone calls, is easier to come by working for your local state rep. Furthermore, these candidates are the ones who will be able to actually impact your daily lives in fundamental ways. While the President, Congressmen, Governor may have the title, prestige, or name recognition, if you are a student, your school board will likely affect you more. Your local ordinances and statutes for community center funding, housing regulations, and what social services are available to you and your friends are fought for and legislated by your City or Town Council and State Representatives. Find out who your candidates are. Most candidates have a website, that has where they stand on critical issues, their contact info, and their headquarters address. Look them up, find who excites you. And get in touch. See what they need, and what you can bring. Whether an email or a phone call, most local candidates are thrilled to have young men and women reach out to them to get involved and will have an opportunity of some kind for you. Whether that is knocking on doors, working a desk, and scheduling or running social media channels, I cannot stress enough how these local races open doors, and give you the ability to make actual, demonstrable impacts on your locales. If you do not know where to find what races are being run that affect you, and google is not helping, go on Ballotpedia. They cover municipal elections in the 100 largest municipalities in the country. Often times if you can’t find your municipality listed, a quick search on google, or skimming through your local newspaper will help find it. If that still does not work, contact your local Board of Elections or Board of Canvassers.

State Representatives For those who are willing to put in a larger time commitment, applying to intern for your state representatives, your congressional representatives and senators, or the governor of your home state can be an amazing opportunity. The biggest things to keep in mind

when applying for these positions is that you will want to work for the official whose views are most similar to your own, and that most officials in office want to hire primarily residents of their home states, or secondly, students who attend school in their home state. If you’re a Democrat from California, attempting to work for a Senator from Texas really does not make sense on either end. If one of these officials are up for re–election, and you have done some work at the local level prior, apply to work for their campaign staff! While harder to get a position with than on a local level, Statewide races also require staffing, and interns. Working in your home state (or adopted home) can give you both newfound love, and knowledge, of where you’re from, whether it is culture and cuisine, or what needs to be improved. You can see what the most pressing issue is for your fellow residents. The more work you’ve done, the more connections you have made, like any field, will open up more doors for you. Many political candidates will cannibalize each other’s staff if someone drops out. People will get new jobs with new candidates and officials. Seeing if someone you worked with in the past can get you a position in races and in government that would not be open to you otherwise.

Presidential 2020: Like me, if you want to have an impact on an upcoming Presidential campaign, whether by volunteering, interning, or job seeking consider not only which candidate will you agree with most, but which candidate will need you the most. Oftentimes, insurgent, lower tier candidates are more strapped for cash, and need unpaid volunteers and interns. Furthermore, they will have less to lose and thus will have more opportunities for younger, less experienced staff. Will larger, more well funded candidates take volunteers? Always. But if you want to do more, take on a larger load, and get truer experience shaping our democracy, the candidates with the most need will allow you to do the most. Getting involved early in the primary race and going outside the front runners will open doors for you. Oftentimes, as candidates pull out, their staff is cannibalized by larger ones, absorbing them. You might end up working for three different campaigns, but the experience working on it is second to none.

Overall, get in contact with the office of your political party or your favorite candidate. They are always welcoming more help, and the hardest part is initially reaching out. Grab a friend and start contributing to a campaign today. Not everything is glamorous: data entry, cleaning the campaign office, creating yard signs, stamping envelopes–but everything helps.

About Zac: Zac is a registered independent in the state of Rhode Island (with liberal leaning views), and studies political science and political economics. His first taste of political involvement came in high school where he volunteered for two campaigns for his local state senator and his local congressman. He did grunt work, collecting signatures for about 20 hours a week outside of grocery stores in order to make sure they were on the ballot, and staffed information booths. Demonstrating how volunteering opens doors, he was offered a paid position for the fall on Rep. David Cicilinne’s campaign. Following his freshman year of college, he spent his summer working full time for the State of Rhode Island as research aide in the Governor of Rhode Island’s Executive Legal Counsel’s office, and as the assistant to the Public Information Officer and Communications Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. Most recently, this past summer he worked for New York State Assemblyman and Democratic National Committee Vice–Chair Michael Blake of the Bronx as Acting Communications Director.

Ways to create impact:

Word of mouth: In this stage of the election with so many candidates in the running, it can be overwhelming to pick one. Voice your opinion on social media to generate noise for your candidate of choice.

Donate to specific political organizations or campaigns: if you feel strongly about an issue, find an organization that supports aligned politicians and also acts around the cause.

Help people get registered to vote: Spreading the word via social media is an easy yet effective method, but you can take it a step further by volunteering to register people in your community or even hosting your own voter registration event.

Become a poll worker: You can help by volunteering to become a poll worker, helping to set up polling places and monitor the polls throughout the day to make sure that things go smoothly.

Canvassing: engage with voters by going door– to–door to speak with them at their homes to engage voters of a particular district to talk to them about your candidate, spread the vote, get them to register to vote, gather data, sell merchandise, solicit donations, or distribute information.

Phone Banking: reach out to voters for canvassing or getting out the vote.

Attend a College Democrats or Republicans meeting: Many campaigns will come these clubs and opportunities to get involved will present themselves right in front of you.

Most do not want to make politics and government their full time job, and strictly want to ensure their beliefs are represented. I understand that. We all want to pursue careers that make us happy. For me, that is government and politics. I view it as a service to my fellow Americans, to try and make this world a better place. I hope you do too. Whatever your views are, our generation needs to make sure our voices are heard, whether in the office, at a protest, or at the ballot box. 2020 is an election for our collective future. Make sure your vision is seen.

Search the web to find your candidate’s local offices: Find out where your candidate’s local office is. Go in and say you’d like to volunteer for an hour or so, and they’ll get you working on a number of different, interesting projects you want to do. Use social media: it’s an easy way to encourage and influence your peers. Show them that you are supporting a candidate and that if you can volunteer, they can too.

art by kate bowling

Is There Still Room For Hope? A Look into the Future by michelle austreich

I have been thinking a lot about the concept of hope and what kind of role it plays in our current political landscape. What does hope even mean? Should that be how we gauge our future prospects? To me, “hoping” seems a rather passive way to achieve a better tomorrow. I do not think that it should be the catalyst for political action, especially in times when the supply of it is lacking. On the other hand, the beauty of hope is that it has no bounds, and nothing truly limits you from hoping for the best possible outcome in any scenario. While we should not rely on it to spur change, we can utilize it as a tool in the pursuit and desire for something better. This is why the rhetoric of hope will never truly disappear, because when policy and lawmakers fail us, at least the dream that justice is possible in our society lives on. It is important to remember that when faced with headlines that crush us and make us feel like all of this effort is worth nothing. With the attempt to keep up with the news cycle that seems to update by the second, I have to remind myself these days that my emotions and fears do not exist as facts, and therefore I should not allow them to control me. It is easier said than done to manage anxiety about politics, especially when others often tell us to “just turn it off” and “focus on more important things.” The human brain is wired to focus on negative bias, meaning we keep coming back to the news even if we know that it is harmful for us. The media capitalizes on and sensationalizes the pessimism and fear that no one is immune to; thus begins the vicious cycle. I find it impossible to detach myself from political narratives because they impact my life, whether directly or not.

Mđ ěų öŃüū ĹŃų ěĸŢÓðų ĸüƿ ěų ÓƢüðųū ūŃĸüŃĹü ųĘÓų M ĮĹŃƏƿ ÓĹö ųĘÓų ěū ĸŃťü ųĘÓĹ üĹŃŸĒĘ ťüÓūŃĹ ųŃ ðŃĹųěĹŸü ƥĒĘųěĹĒƿ day in and day out, for a more equal world that is truly inclusive and does not just make empty claims to be so.

There is a clear lack of empathy in politics. The reinforcement and reminder of a “common enemy” keeps parties focused and united in their own twisted way, which is the essence of why politics are so messed up. The worst part is that this. is. not. new. Maybe that is why it is so disappointing and yet unsurprising; it cannot be explained away by one horrible politician or rule; it is the foundation upon which we attempt to coexist. It is strange these days when you attempt to have a bipartisan conversation, as it quickly dissolves into “You have your facts and I have mine” or “Let’s agree to disagree.” I beg to differ. Human lives are not up for debate. Access to birth control or clean air is not up for debate. The right to exist as who you are should not just be a talking point. The fact that the playing ground in America is uneven and always has been is not an opinion. It is a fact that some just choose to sidestep while they profit by stepping on the backs of others. The pandemic especially has exacerbated and capitalized on people’s anxieties and feelings of powerlessness, and this takes center stage when tactics of fear–mongering are applied in order to get people to listen. Spreading exaggerated claims and spinning neatly–wrapped lies has become almost a prerequisite for holding a position of power. The rhetoric that seems insane to you is actually normal to someone in the market to blame others for their own misfortunes. Politicians know this and use it to sway people into a certain direction, as we have been witness to a new type of conspiracy theory that exists on a spectrum, and is not just an outlandish claim about aliens circling in space. The individuals that we should look to for guidance are tapping into how people feel and connecting those emotions to something else, anything else to make their talking points leap off of the page as dire and paint a picture of a society in shambles. Feuds between local and state officials are a microcosm of the divide that now defines America as a whole, and adhering to party lines has triumphed over declaring that people’s lives might maybe be more important. We can all agree that as a country we are quite divided, that’s great, anything else? Where do we go from here? I cannot tell you to be hopeful when we now vote against someone instead of for someone. It is nearly impossible to imagine that a candidate

truly worth fighting for can exist, but we have to keep going in order for that day to come. We can agree on one thing for sure: the fact that there is a need to be skeptical of everything. A different sort of realism has emerged that no longer tries to gloss over issues as things that will eventually just resolve themselves, but instead, issues that need our time and attention right now. The new hope is that this moment shifts into a lasting movement, where we hold the people that claim to represent us accountable, and we address the long– standing inequalities that many have denounced as “That’s just how it is.” You cannot expect the world to be a fair and just place by choice, and the people in power need to lead by example and put their money where their mouth is. We also cannot rely on politicians and leaders to actually be the change: that is our job now. It is crucial not to exist in an echo chamber. You cannot just focus your anger and conversations on the people that already agree with you. Sure, you can agree to disagree and sometimes you are forced to. The line has to be drawn when it crosses the boundary of something that mentally or emotionally is something that you cannot handle, and it does not take away from your efforts if you need to take a step back. Talking about change and focusing your efforts on trying to convert the people in your life that disagree with you can sadly just be doing more harm than good, especially for you. It is additionally important to zoom out and focus on the macro perspective, and not spend all of your energy arguing with everyone who disagrees. Thanks to the internet, we can seek solace from those who hold the same opinions, and it is easy to find something that will reassure you that things will be okay. The point is, you are not alone in your desire for something better, and change that has been promised for many decades has yet to be tangibly delivered. You, as an individual, are more powerful than you realize, and it is time to come to the conclusion that institutions will not save us, we will. Maybe then it is not hope that I have, but just plain sturdy optimism. At least I try to force myself to look at the world through rose–colored glasses sometimes, as a reminder that good is still out there. I am oftentimes inspired by the people my age around me, and I respect how outspoken, creative, and unwilling to settle for the

I get that thinking about the future is discouraging and downright terrifying, but that is why we all have to take things into our own hands and vote. It is definitely not the only thing that we can do, that is for sure, but using your voice to elect individuals that actually represent your interests (not just on the federal level) is a very important step in the right direction. Thinking pragmatically and being aware of what is going on is what gives us the potential to change the structure of politics, which is long overdue. Technology is the new frontier to mobilize for change and we have it on lock. Maybe sometime soon we will have nominees for President that are under the age of fortyâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;five, or is that too radical? Maybe we will eliminate the twoâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;party system entirely! The world is our oyster, but change can only happen when we take a conscious step toward awareness and remove ourselves from the safety and convenience of our ignorance. The world may underestimate our impact, but I surely do not.

art by kate bowling

Although we have often been called an emotionally fragile generation, I think that is representative of our refusal to accept the privatization of morality.

status quo they are. My peers push me to think outside of my own bubble, and that is why I think we are not completely doomed.

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy

Future and Hope Looking into the future, we are wary when it comes to hope. Through all the uncertainty there is one thing for sure: we are committed to making the world a better place. Do you feel hopeful when you think of the future?

29.2% YES

59.7% SOMETIMES Too much at play. Too big a country. I have no idea what my lifetime will look like. Which is exciting. Also terrifying. |Jackson Prince|

A lot of people are seeing through the bullshit right now. I believe we are on the verge of a mass awakening. |Faiz Haque| If we look at the future negatively, then it will be that way. If we see light at the end of the tunnel, then we can do something about it. |Maya Bhandari|

I have no idea what’s going to happen. I love this energy from my generation and that gives me hope, but I don’t know if it’s coming too late. |Maya Lathi|

Because of our generations early than expected and usual political engagement. |Zac Emanuel|

There have been way worse times in history and they got through it eventually. I fear hopefulness can be naive. |Sami Rosenblatt|

I think a lot of youth have a better understanding of social issues, no matter what profession they go into, there is a better understanding which has the ability to transform many sectors in the economy and society. |Kavita Rai|

11.1% NO I think our climate is already f*cked. We are a flawed species that will die out like the ones that came before us. |Anonymous| Humans are selfish and bound to fail. |Jack Bekos|

I’ve just lost a lot of trust in the government so sometimes I feel like corruption will last forever. |Anonymous|

How will you make America a better Action I’m planning on dedicating my life to public service. Zachary Emanuel Becoming a lawyer and advocating for justice. Sami Rosenblatt I am starting a nonprofit to support people to become plant based and save our country’s land and resources. Maya Bhandari Make sure people’s stories are told!!! Zoe Ginsberg By revolutionizing sex-ed curriculum in the United States. Maya Lathi Social, political engagement and through a career as a healthcare professional. Anonymous

Advocacy I’m going into environmental science/ agriculture and I’m going to work to fight for intersectional environmental justice so people can live safely and have access to healthy, nourishing food so they can go out and change the world and succeed. Ana

Voting Vote and educate my own family. Christine Chang By voting to remove Trump from office. Freddy Rio I will not only vote this election but continue organizing on Gun Violence Prevention, Climate Change, and Youth Empowerment. Vidya Muthupillai

Have the difficult conversations with my family members who don’t agree with me, and share information with others about issues going on in the world right now. Stevie Terando By supporting movements that will make our country a safe one for all. Efrain Laguna Learn about diverse perspectives and engage with everyone free of judgment. Katie Stone

I hope to be an educated, thoughtful voice in political conversations and personal circles. Chloe Hirth

Speaking up for those whose voices are not inherently heard. Nikki Cohen I will do my best to make everyone feel heard, on both sides. I will do my best to educate those who have chosen ignorance, and help them see the truth. Anam Faruqi

Where We Stand: Gen Z Sentiments on Government & Policy Report Appendix Through a questionnaire, we surveyed 70 Gen Z’ers on the following topics: Current State/ General Government Beliefs, Polarization, COVID-19, Racial Injustice, Women in Politics, Media & News, Platforms & Policy, Voting Behaviors, and Future & Hope. This report briefly captures the views of our sample of Generation Z, and their perceptions on these topics as they relate to the current political climate. The findings were scattered throughout this issue.

Age:

Gender Identity:

13 1 15 1 16 1 17 2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 25

40.8% Male

4 4

2.9% Agender

8 35

56.3% Female

8 5

Race:

Óðěƥð Islander

Hispanic/ Latino

Middle Eastern

Black

3 3

White

3 16

Asian

11 2+ Races

Afterword by anushka joshi

edited by alicia novoa, director of engagement, Future Coalition This is the era of the Hopeful Rebel. The world isn’t perfect, but it can improve – and believe it or not, it has. When we step back and take a longer and wider view of the world we can see proof in the power of humanity. The world we want to live in isn’t going to magically appear – we are going to have to work for it. So let’s get tired. Feel the pain – but let’s feel it together. And recognize that in the midst of the madness, we will always have each other. Civic engagement, activism, and organizing shouldn’t come out of a place of hatred and division – it should come from a place of community and belonging. Remind yourself what it means to be a citizen of the United States of America. This land is your land, and this land is my land. This is our land. We belong here – all of us. It’s a place where we can coexist, learn from each other across boundaries, and share that knowledge across each path we take. But these possibilities have been shadowed by our current state of division. There’s a lot of disappointment right now, but that is the basis of the Hopeful Rebel. At this intersection, we can make this country into anything we want it to be. Activists are often brushed off as young people who haven’t learned what real life is yet. We accept the reality of the world we are presented with, but there is no more truth out there than the world we create. Furthermore, activism is about survival for most people. And if it’s not, it is a privilege – and a privilege one must use. Compassion and empathy are in our DNA and should drive our biggest actions and smallest interactions. And it starts with a vote. As Gloria Steinem said, “voting isn’t the most we can do, but it is the least.” The current system doesn’t work for us right now, but we have the power to make it work. And while it is tempting to walk away and abandon the system, that is not a way to enact effective change. Instead, we must work from inside the belly of the beast. The establishment doesn’t want us to vote, so that’s why we will. Voting is a form of protesting – an act of rebellion. For many Generation Z’ers, this is #OurFirstVote. Let’s not lose hope.