JHU POLITIK
the
I
AUGUST 31, 2015
VOLUME XVIII, ISSUE I
the
JHU POLITIK EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Christine Server & Juliana Vigorito MANAGING EDITOR Mira Haqqani
HEAD WRITER Evan Harary
ASSISTANT EDITORS Dylan Etzel Preston Ge Shrenik Jain Sathvik Namburar
POLICY DESK EDITOR Arpan Ghosh
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Diana Lee
MARYLAND EDITOR David Hamburger
COPY EDITOR Zachary Schlosberg WEBMASTER Position Open MARKETING & PUBLICITY Chiara Wright
CAMPUS EDITOR Christina Selby
STAFF WRITERS Olga Baranoff Dylan Cowit Rosellen Grant George Gulino Morley Musick Sathvik Namburar Corey Payne
FACULTY ADVISOR Charlotte O’Donnell
2 the JHU POLITIK
• April 31, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue I
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9
It’s Time to Improve the VA Sathvik Namburar ’18 White Progressive Hypocrisy: Whose Revolution?
Corey Payne ’17
“Culture of Peace:”
Matisyahu, Rototom Sunsplash, and the Music of Social Justice
David Hamburger ’18 Martin O’Malley:
Not Quite the Dark Horse You’re Looking for
Shrenik Jain ’18
Unsafe at any Router Speed
Evan Harary ’16
When Lack of Substance Inspires Voter Confidence: The Trump Conundrum
Abigail Annear ’18
Volume XVIII, Issue I • August 31, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
It’s Time to Improve the VA by Sathvik Namburar ’18, Assistant Editor
I
n July, Donald Trump questioned whether Senator John McCain was a war hero, drawing well-warranted ire from conservatives and liberals alike. In the aftermath of his remarks, Trump defended himself by shifting the topic of conversation to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), arguing that McCain and other politicians are not doing enough to help America’s veterans. While Trump offered no specifics on how he would help veterans, I believe that his remarks following the McCain controversy did, in fact, pinpoint a legitimate issue: the VA needs reform. The VA’s proposed 2016 budget to serve our country’s nearly twenty-two million veterans is $168.8 billion. The department offers various necessities to veterans such as healthcare, forms of insurance, employment training, college funding, disability compensation, and pensions. Unfortunately, the VA has suffered from mismanagement and misconduct, as last summer’s scandal over extended wait times at VA hospitals demonstrated. This summer, I interned for the U.S. Congressman representing my district in my home state of Georgia. There, I helped veterans who had been denied disability compensation from the VA appeal their decisions. Some of the veterans whose appeals we processed were homeless; many others were struggling to readjust to civilian life. We would mail a hard copy of the appeals paperwork to the VA and then wait for a written response via letter or e-mail. Because the VA has not fully integrated new technologies, we frequently experienced delays of several months before the department could rule on these appeals. The human costs of these inefficiencies are tremendous: during my time as an intern, I heard, more than once, of veterans who passed away before a decision was made concerning his or her appeal.
However significant the VA’s technological inefficiencies, an even more fundamental problem exists: a general lack of urgency within the department. We were often forced to follow up on correspondences that we sent and prod the VA to review the information we submitted. The VA is not a business, but running the department more like one would lead to greater efficiency. As former U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle wrote in a CNN article last June, if the VA orients itself around the idea of veterans as customers whose loyalty must be earned, then the department would seek veterans’ input and actively find ways to improve. VA Secretary Robert McDonald, who was appointed after the resignation of Eric Shinseki last year, was formerly a successful CEO at Procter & Gamble, but it remains to be seen if he can successfully apply his experience at the VA. While Donald Trump has not yet produced any concrete plans on how to improve the VA, other candidates have. On August 17 in South Carolina, Jeb Bush proposed reforms to address the need for a technology overhaul of the VA. The proposal would incorporate business-like features into the department’s operations, such as allowing veterans to see a private physician while receiving compensation from the VA, as well as enhancing the department’s ability to fire underperforming employees. Marco Rubio outlined similar proposals in July, and while Hillary Clinton has not formally announced her stance concerning the VA, she met with veterans in June and spoke of the need for reform. As I witnessed this summer, the VA still needs to be significantly improved. Whoever wins the election in 2016 should do so in order to honor the sacrifices of our country’s veterans. ■
While the VA does have an online system through which veterans can initially file for benefits and other services, the appellate process is emblematic of how the VA could improve its technology usage. As veterans advocate Tom Tarantino suggested in an August 2014 USA Today article, for example, the VA could create an app through which veterans can easily request and track the status of various services, which would allow veterans to verify that the department operates in a timely manner. Furthermore, since each VA regional office currently uses software programs that are incompatible with those of other offices, aligning all of the various programs would also be a logical step, wrote former Pentagon official Phillip Carter in a piece for Slate in May 2014.
4 the JHU POLITIK
• April 31, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue I
White Progressive Hypocrisy: Whose Revolution?
T
by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
his has been a summer of revolt. From the rise of anti-establishment candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, to the campaigns of labor unions to raise the minimum wage, to the success of #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) in turning a moment into a movement, Americans are saying that they have had enough. These movements can bring positive effects to the country, like ensuring all Americans who work full-time won’t live in poverty, but they can also bring about negative ones (e.g. Donald Trump’s shot-in-the-dark candidacy). But more likely than not, these movements will bring about bittersweet moments: times when we are inspired by the humanity of those involved yet overwhelmed by the reality of what we still need to accomplish. One of these moments occurred at the intersection of two movements: when white progressives met black progressives. Throughout the summer, BLM protestors have interrupted presidential candidates across the country, demanding to know how they will fight the structural racism that has plagued our economic, social, and justice systems. For the most part, we saw the typical non-responses: Jeb Bush, for example, brushed it off while his supporters began chanting “white lives matter.” The only one who responded was Bernie Sanders. While he was at first dismissive of the interruption, he later introduced the most comprehensive racial justice plan from a candidate in modern memory, emphasizing the need to address physical, political, and economic violence against people of color. Sanders’ response was the ‘sweet’ part of the moment. The ‘bitter’ came when he was interrupted on stage by BLM protestors. While they stood on stage requesting a moment of silence for Mike Brown a year after he was gunned down and left in the street for four and a half hours, the white ‘progressives’ in the audience heckled, booed, and demanded that the organizers get off the stage.
We see it in feminism, where intersectionality is ignored and white women do not acknowledge that oppression is experienced in radically different ways. We see it in economic progressivism when we talk about raising the minimum wage and expanding social security benefits while continuing to ignore the massive rates of black youth unemployment. We see it even more clearly in the wake of Sanders’ interruption, when black lives matter less than white liberal feelings do. Calls of shock and disbelief by white progressives echoed throughout the liberal media, questioning why Bernie Sanders was targeted. It soon became clear to the level-headed progressives as his campaign unveiled his racial justice platform: he was the most accessible candidate. BLM made national headlines for months because of protests and demonstrations, and now they are part of a platform for a candidate for president. Their interruptions worked. But this development doesn’t change the initial problem: Bernie’s rally was a white space, and the white progressives in the audience didn’t want to talk about ‘black issues.’ Progressivism in this country has always been white-washed. We are quick to condemn the actions of those who do not look like us out of fear that they ‘are bringing the whole movement down’ by not conforming to what mainstream society says social change should look like - the same argument used against men like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s time our movement stopped pretending to be something it is not. Either we are for progressive values, for equity and justice, or we are not. Racial justice cannot be delinked from the movement. It cannot be an afterthought. We will not succeed until we all succeed; we cannot win unless we fight together. As Bernie has said, a political revolution has begun in this country. Now is the time that we decide who it is for. ■
I am a white progressive—and I am ashamed. I am a participant in the BLM movement—and I am angry. A woman stood up and asked for a moment of silence, and she was booed. I am ashamed and I am angry, but I am not surprised. This is only the latest manifestation of white supremacy in the progressive movement. Far too often we find ourselves unwilling to accept the racial justice cause into our activism. Too often we see people who are blind to this systemic oppression but get away with their ignorance because they fall under the label ‘progressive.’
Volume XVIII, Issue I • August 31, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
“Culture of Peace:” Matisyahu, Rototom Sunsplash, and the Music of Social Justice
I
by David Hamburger ’18, Maryland Editor
n mid-August, the Spanish music festival Rototom Sunsplash announced that it was rescinding its invitation for American reggae singer Matisyahu to participate in the annual event. Rototom defended its decision on the grounds that the artist had failed “to clearly declare himself regarding…the right of the Palestinian people to have their own State.” Only two days passed, however, before Matisyahu was back in the lineup, as Rototom apologized amidst international outcry. In a “public institutional declaration,” the organizers of the festival claimed to have disinvited the singer due to “the campaign of pressure, coercion and threats employed by the BDS País Valencià.” BDS País Valencià, a Spanish group associated with the international pro-Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign, in turn denounced Rototom’s capitulation to the “powerful Zionist lobby.” In the weeks following, much of the controversy around Rototom has centered on the original claims of the festival organizers that Matisyahu, an American Jew, should be barred from performing due to his past performances for pro-Israel American audiences. Regardless of the tenuousness of those arguments–arguments that have smacked to many of antiSemitism–BDS País Valencià overstepped reasonable limits in their attempt to remove Matisyahu. By their own admission, the organizers of BDS País Valencià wandered “outside the remit of the cultural boycott of Israel” that forms the centerpiece of the international BDS campaign. Ultimately, this overzealous activism coupled with distorted media coverage resulted in an acrimonious debate that raises serious concerns about the guiding principles of the Rototom Sunsplash festival. The responsibility for this disappointing episode does not lie solely with an aggressive group of BDS campaigners. Rototom’s leadership strives to portray the festival as a gathering for social justice in “a Culture of Peace.” Scheduling, then barring, and then rescheduling a singer over political views is, at best, indecisive – but barring an apolitical singer for similar reasons is inexcusable. More disconcertingly, by confronting the “pressure, coercion, and threats” of BDS only after condemnation by both the Spanish government and international press, Rototom demonstrated either a lack of integrity or an opaque bias against Matisyahu.
burn homosexuals has previously led more discerning festivals to bar his attendance. In light of the international scrutiny the 2015 festival drew, it seems surprising that few media outlets mentioned the inclusion of Capleton at a venue celebrating a “Culture of Peace.” Remarkably, one of the only major media pieces to address Capleton’s homophobic views was an Al Jazeera English opinion on August 23rd, which failed to note the hypocrisy of initially barring Matisyahu and hosting Capleton. While acknowledging Capleton’s “record of obnoxious homophobia,” the author decried the passivity of the local LGBT community, laying the blame on activists who were “uninterested or unprepared to make a similar fuss over Capleton” to that made over Matisyahu. That Matisyahu was ultimately allowed to perform, the Al Jazeera English piece continued, only highlights the “cowardice” of the festival organizers in bowing to the pressure of the Jewish lobby. While Matisyahu’s involvement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems limited to acknowledging his Jewish faith, the openly and violently homophobic messages of artists such as Capleton reflect a deep disregard for the most basic of human rights. That the former faced removal from the festival while the latter performed on the main stage demonstrates either complete ignorance on the part of Rototom organizers or an unwillingness to apply even part of the ludicrously devised standard used for Matisyahu to the remainder of their performers. If following this debacle Rototom Sunsplash hopes to preserve any credibility in its claims of social consciousness at future events, perhaps eschewing lines like “all boogaman [homosexuals] and sodemites fi [sic] get killed” is a good place to start. ■
However misguided and misinformed the approach to Matisyahu’s views was–and it was quite clearly both–Rototom’s professed concern with human rights would seem worth applauding if this year’s concert did not also feature reggae artists such as Capleton, a Jamaican whose lyricized desire to
6 the JHU POLITIK
• April 31, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue I
Martin O’Malley: Not Quite the Dark Horse You’re Looking for
A
by Shrenik Jain ’18, Assistant Editor
presidential candidate just made headlines for attacking the political leadership of his party, and surprisingly, it wasn’t a GOP candidate. Rather, the speaker was Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley, who decried the Democratic National Committee’s decision to limit the number of primary debates – leveling a less-than-subtle accusation that the DNC is backing Hillary Clinton’s candidacy even before primary season ends. While the GOP runs in circles around an unrepentant Trump, the Clinton juggernaut raises more money and consolidates its influence further with each day. O’Malley’s speech will undoubtedly give him some much needed publicity in his uphill battle for the Democratic nomination – but it is unlikely to be enough. O’Malley, a D.C.-born lawyer, exploded into the political scene when he was elected as a white mayor of Baltimore City in 1999. O’Malley’s data-driven approach to crime dramatically lowered crime rates and catapulted him to the Governorship by 2006. O’Malley established himself as a staunch liberal and rising star in the Democratic Party, collecting a steady stream of base-pleasing achievements, including expanding gun control and limiting the cost of education. O’Malley, who has long held high political ambition, announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination on May 30, right on the heels of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. For all of his accomplishments, the prognosis for O’Malley’s campaign is dire, with strong rivals, past controversies, and lackluster popularity spelling doom for the ex-governor. Given such challenges, O’Malley will likely end up leveraging his presidential campaign as a stepping stone into anywhere besides the Oval Office in 2016. The 52-year-old O’Malley entered the race as a youthful, steadfast progressive for liberal voters who cringed at the prospect of supporting Hillary Clinton, a candidate seen by many as calculating and manipulative. Ironically, a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, has easily snatched up this demographic, robbing O’Malley of his base. This issue is compounded by allegations (currently unproven) against O’Malley for fudging crime stats during his time as mayor – an issue poorly juxtaposed against the pristine history of Sanders. But these two issues are overshadowed by one other— O’Malley’s struggle for both name recognition and popularity. A Gallup poll released on July 24 had 78% of respondents unfamiliar or possessing no opinion of Martin O’Malley, while an even more dismaying October 2014 Goucher Poll had 65% of Maryland residents believing that O’Malley should not run for president at all.
O’Malley points to a large bank of historical underdogs to defend his low polling numbers, but he is overly optimistic in underestimating both the political capital of Hillary Clinton and the vigor of Bernie Sanders. O’Malley’s recent speech criticizing the DNC’s decision limiting the number of debates was an outstanding performance, but the DNC shows no sign of backing down. More worryingly, O’Malley has failed to consistently display this rhetorical eloquence, putting him at a disadvantage against Bernie Sanders’ firebrand populism. With the presidency seemingly out of reach, O’Malley is likely reaching for his playbook of contingencies. While inconsistent on the stump, O’Malley has proven himself to be a competent executive and manager, with the next logical step being for him to showcase his managerial ability in a cabinet position under a second President Clinton. The close political relationship between the two (O’Malley was a vocal proponent of Clinton’s in 2007 and served as the chair of Clinton’s 2008 campaign in Maryland) means that such an appointment is hardly a stretch. Furthermore, O’Malley’s limited presence in the primaries could prove an advantage to the Clinton team, with O’Malley’s candidacy placating both voters who feel uncomfortable with the thought of the nomination being handed uncontested to Clinton and worried party seniors who cringe at the thought of giving the independent Bernie Sanders even more attention. O’Malley will continue to play a role in the primaries as a moderate for Clinton to spar with—but the numbers will force O’Malley to back down at some point. O’Malley’s recent speech showed that he has a political future ahead of him—but Bernie Sanders’ populist appeal and Hillary Clinton’s chokehold on party politics spell doom on O’Malley’s presidential run in 2016, even if he could overcome obscurity and controversy. O’Malley’s commendable policy record and recent publicity, however, mean the ambitious Marylander still has a role to play in this election as a foil for Hillary Clinton, with a graceful escape strategy to land in her cabinet. ■
Volume XVIII, Issue I • August 31, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Unsafe at any Router Speed by Evan Harary ’16, Head Writer
F
rom the U.S. government to Ashley Madison, no entity is immune to cyberattacks. Whether the hackers are government affiliates or a loose network of vigilantes, one thing is clear: their capabilities have visibly outpaced the powers of public and private entities to defend themselves. For the most part, however, the general public has not been affected by cyberattacks, so public demands for increased cybersecurity have been muted. Many worry that as more products and entities utilize internet connectivity, there remains an insufficient infrastructure in place to defend against cyberattacks, leaving the general population vulnerable. Cars are one of many unwired products expected to “go online” in the coming years. Fostering connectivity among automobiles is undeniably useful; it allows for manufacturers to better address performance issues, communicate public relations strategy, and enact partnerships with other brands. But going online comes with its own risks. At a security conference in Las Vegas, two security researchers, Charlie Miller and Chris Vasalek, demonstrated that they could hack into a moving 2015 Jeep, controlling its brakes, steering and windshield wipers. The researchers notified Fiat Chrysler of their methods, and the car company developed a patch and condemned the two security experts for publicizing their actions. But Miller and Vasalek explicitly acted in order to garner publicity for what they feel is an underappreciated threat. With only the names and information of a select few at stake in cyberattacks thus far, many do not understand the threat that cybersecurity breaches pose. Miller and Vasalek sought to hack something tangible in order to make a point: “I wanted to do something that my grandmother would understand,” Miller told the New York Times, “Also I drive cars…I would like them to be safe.” Despite hackers’ demonstrable power, responses to cyberattacks have lagged behind what hackers can do. Cybersecurity is also inherently entangled with issues of privacy, adding further obstacles to the achievement of comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. Two cybersecurity bills that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in May authorized businesses to remotely disable computers suspected of hacking, encouraged sharing of employee and customer information amongst corporations, granted companies immunity from lawsuits, and gave the NSA and FBI access to corporate databases without a search warrant, even if the information in question is not related to a cybersecurity investigation. Civil liberties advocacy groups have been understandably critical of these measures on ethical grounds. But cybersecurity experts note that, while advancing the investigative capabilities of corporations and governmental
8 the JHU POLITIK
organizations, these bills offer no enforcement mechanism or incentive to move corporations toward more secure computer systems. Now, the Senate has the opportunity to tailor the bill into a less invasive and more effective iteration through the installment of appropriately persuasive measures. Many wonder if U.S. corporations even have the personnel to implement secure systems should incentives come into place, as there seems to be a cultural chasm between government/ corporate culture and that of the most advanced hackers. As legislation lags, the government is taking strides to catch up, doing its best to attract top-tier hackers even as bulk collection programs garner bad publicity. Tellingly, programmers are the only segment of government employees not subject to drug testing. The NSA and others are attempting further unorthodox measures to remedy the dearth of tech-savvy talent willing to work for the government. GenCyber, a NSA funded summer camp at Marymount University in Arlington, VA, seeks to train middle and high school-aged students in basic skills, from cracking encrypted passwords to building large-scale computer security systems. The program, which has ambitious expansion plans, aims to groom a generation of tech talent for thousands of new cybersecurity positions. The main problem with cybersecurity is that so few understand it or grasp the full threat that it poses. Furthermore, with computer programmers in such high demand, many governments and companies will go without secure systems due to the prohibitive expense and relatively intangible benefit that increased cybersecurity offers. It may take a catastrophic hit to shift more resources into comprehensive cybersecurity. As Mr. Miller put it when hacking a car, “This was the first time I’ve been truly freaked out…when I could hack into a car in Nebraska driving down the freeway, I had that feeling, ‘I shouldn’t be able to do this.’” ■
• April 31, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue I
When Lack of Substance Inspires Voter Confidence:
The Trump Conundrum
W
by Abigail Annear ’18, Contributing Writer
e’ve all been there. Too many times to count. Legs crossed with eyes full of sorrow and regret, you stare contritely at a parent, principal, or boss as they demand an explanation. Despite countless discussions on how wrongful behavior and practices would be reformed, broken promises and inaction fail to meet the expectations of our superiors, eroding confidence and trust in personal competence. To their chagrin, countless politicians find themselves mumbling excuses to embittered constituents about why the policies that they had preached throughout their candidacies were never implemented. Time and time again, government officials facing public criticism before reelection or discussing their legacies struggle to justify terms in office marked by partisan gridlock and endless concessions. As a result, they barely make a dent in the status quo. The transition from candidate to elected official showcases the evolution of idealism as it succumbs to the realities of entrenched institutions and practices. One need look no further than the front page to see the latest example of such circumstances: Alexis Tsipras, the now-resigned Greek Prime Minister who captured the hearts of his people with antiausterity proclamations, only to sign away the country to the Eurozone through onerous budget cuts several months later. Inconsequential addenda along with the occasional superfluous bill are hailed as major victories by administrations that had once ridden the waves of “revolutionary” fervor all the way into office. However, as one optimistic foot enters the lofty threshold of political office, the other is immediately engulfed by the undertow that is billon dollar lobby groups and closed door negotiations. Combined with the belligerent nature of the United States Congress and activist actions of the Supreme Court, a heady maze of obstacles await the bullet-pointed plans that the average American hopes will be enacted. Given the inevitable dilution of candidates’ proposals by the end of the campaign cycle, it’s refreshing to have a contender running on a platform that avoids being a platform at all. Despite incendiary, bombastic, and routinely ignorant rhetoric, Donald Trump has established a non-agenda that resonates deeply with a population long disillusioned by unfulfilled promises. In an interview conducted by The New York Times at the Iowa State Fair, Amanda Mancini, a California native, argued that Mr. Trump would “figure it out” by the time he reached the
Oval Office. “We do have to trust him, but he has something that we can trust in. We can look at the Trump brand, we can look at what he’s done, and we can say that’s how he’s done everything.” By broadcasting broad yet provocative statements, Mr. Trump has provided himself with a “big wall,” if you will, capable of endorsing flexibility in his government initiatives while simultaneously thwarting opponents’ objections throughout the election season. In a way, the “all talk-no words” approach harkens back to the era of flexible response under President John F. Kennedy. While many deride Mr. Trump’s half-hearted allegiance to the Republican ticket, many others appreciate his defiance of party constraints to advocate for a more comprehensive perspective on the United States and its government. To acknowledge and reject the spectrum of standard political views by refusing to attach yourself to a specific position essentially negates sectarian limitations that might impede adaptability within an administration. If you are solely prepared to implement one strategy or have formally committed yourself to one particular course of action, you risk being caught off guard without contingency plans when the future inevitably throws unforeseen barriers in your path. After decades of toying with a presidential bid, Mr. Trump finally declared his candidacy, concurrently firm in delivery and subtle in substance. Although frustratingly comical, Trump’s unique campaign strategy evades political quagmires that have dismantled even the strongest of campaigns. If he continues to inspire high polling figures among the Republican field, the United States may find itself stuck with low expectations and lofty dreams for four years. But no one could scold a selfprofessed non-politician for failing to politick successfully. ■
Volume XVIII, Issue I • August 31, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
WRITE FOR the JHU POLITIK
PHOTO COURTESY: UNITED STATES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS’S PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS DIVISION
JHU Politik, founded in 2008, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins community with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We are lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, the city of Baltimore, the domestic landscape of the United States, and the international community . While we publish the Politik weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested, e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org
10 the JHU POLITIK
• April 31, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue I