JHU POLITIK
the
OCTOBER 13, 2014
VOLUME XVI, ISSUE VII
the
JHU POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Eliza Schultz MANAGING EDITOR Christine Server
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen
ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Dylan Etzel Preston Ge Abigail Sia
POLICY DESK EDITOR Mira Haqqani
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Diana Lee
WEBMASTER Ben Lu
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
MARKETING & PUBLICITY Maria Garcia
STAFF WRITERS Olga Baranoff Arpan Ghosh Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Robert Locke Corey Payne Juliana Vigorito
• October 13, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue VII
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week in Review: Elections Abigail Sia ’15 American Exceptionalism: Not Endowed, but Earned
Corey Payne ’17
Interview With Hong Kong Student Protester Jonathan Lau
Evan Harary ’16
Libertarianism and the Political Right Alexander Grable ’15 Lima:
A Test in Political Stability and Development
Robert Locke ’15
Project Homeless Connect:
Centralizing Services for Baltimore’s Poor
Rebecca Grenham ’16
The Digital Divde Must Be Closed Shannon Libaw ’15
Volume XVI, Issue VII • October 13, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: Elections by Abigail Sia ’15, Assistant Editor Democratic Candidates See Obama’s Support as a Liability Data released this week from the RAND American Life Panel, which continuously surveys thousands of Americans, has revealed that people who voted for President Obama in 2012 are now less likely to vote for a Democratic candidate—or vote at all—in November’s midterm elections. Only 79 percent of Obama 2012 voters support a Democratic candidate for the House, while 82 percent of Romney voters support Republican candidates; 15 percent of Obama voters now support Republicans, whereas only 11 percent of Romney voters support Democrats. RAND estimates that the slip in Democratic support would have been sufficient to eliminate Obama’s narrow 2012 win. Additionally, Obama’s support is now widely seen among Democratic candidates as a liability, and even those running in states pivotal to his 2008 victory (including Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia) are shying away from his endorsement.
Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis Comes Under Fire for Wheelchair Ad The Texas gubernatorial race has erupted into a storm of criticism aimed at candidate Wendy Davis after her campaign released a television ad targeting Republican nominee and outgoing state Attorney General Greg Abbott’s partial paralysis. Davis, who held an 11-hour filibuster in 2013 to block a bill that would have further restricted abortion regulations in Texas, ran an ad that features an empty wheelchair and accuses Abbott of hypocrisy. The ad claims that despite winning the lawsuit filed after the 1984 accident that caused his paralysis, Abbott has been working to curb liability to other victims suing hospitals and corporations. Although Abbott has indeed taken some steps to make it harder to sue, the ad is widely seen as an act by a desperate campaign whose candidate is trailing Abbott by 14 points and has attracted criticism from Republicans, The Washington Post, and even the liberal Mother Jones.
Oregon First Lady’s Previous Marriage May Shake Up Governor’s Race Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber’s fiancée and unofficial First Lady of Oregon, Cylvia Hayes, acknowledged on October 9 that she accepted $5,000 to marry an immigrant in 1997 so that he could obtain legal status and remain in the United States. At the time, Hayes says she was in a dire financial situation—she met her then-husband only a couple of times, never lived with him before their divorce was finalized in 2002, and has not been in contact with him since. Although such marriages are illegal, the statute of limitations has passed, and Hayes has apologized for the marriage and accepted the blame for any potential fallout. Some pundits still expect Kitzhaber to win his bid for a fourth term, as he has enjoyed a steady lead over his Republican opponent for many months. However, they warn that Hayes’ revelation may hurt his momentum and limit his ability to carry out his fourth-term agenda. ■
4 the JHU POLITIK
• October 13, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue VII
American Exceptionalism: Not Endowed, but Earned
T
by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
he College Board has altered the curriculum of the United States History exam in a way that has angered conservatives. Opponents of the change say that the new curriculum discourages patriotism by painting portions of our nation’s history in a negative light. Some of these opponents sit on the school board in Jefferson County, Colorado, and wish to see history presented in a way that will “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system.” History is the most important of all studies for students. History teaches us about ourselves, our heritage, and gives us an insight into the future. History, if not studied continuously, will eventually disappear and be forgotten. More frightening than forgetting history is remembering it incorrectly. Which is exactly what leaders in Jefferson County are proposing. Our history is full of failures and flaws. The United States has done things that are unthinkable by many in today’s world, and by learning about them we can ensure that we, as a society, will not be doomed to repeat them. Do honest lessons about the past depict our history as glamorous? As walking the path of righteousness? No. But for good reason—rarely were we glamorous and even more rarely did we walk the path of righteousness. Patriotism, which opponents of the curriculum change are striving to cultivate in students, is a complicated ideal. Many would say that standing by one’s country through all strife is what constitutes patriotism. I would disagree. Patriotism is not a blind following—it is a conscious effort for change. Howard Zinn wrote that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” I am a patriot, for I believe that we as a people can become that which is great. We teach ourselves that the United States is the greatest country on earth. We teach ourselves that we are infallible. We teach ourselves that those who disagree with us cannot be right. But in this, we are so very wrong. Reports from the Pew Research Center and the Brookings Institution, among others, state that the United States is ranked 17th in reading, 20th in science, and 27th in math.
Our healthcare is ranked 26th in the developed world. We are 3rd in global competitiveness, 66th in religious diversity, 101st in peace, 46th in freedom of the press, 26th in child well-being, 9th in retirement security, and 17th in happiness. But we are still number one—in cocaine use, incarcerated persons per capita, number of ultra-wealthy (our country houses more than 45 percent of the world’s richest 1 percent), and defense spending (larger than the next four largest spenders combined). These data raise an important question: what makes ours the greatest country on earth? Some would say its our American spirit. The American dream. The people’s willingness to overcome any obstacle, to vanquish any foe, and to achieve the impossible. But is that what we’re doing? I have no doubt that the people of this country could best any obstacle in our path—if we recognize it as such. But we sit and we scream at the top of our lungs that America is the best and expect the world to believe it because at one point they said we were exceptional. Therein lies the danger. America is in decline. We have the power to reverse it. We have the potential for exceptionalism. But we do not admit we have a problem. Instead we attempt to revise the history curriculum in order to censor and indoctrinate our young students into believing that we, the people of the United States, live and die exceptionally—and that we don’t have to do anything to prove it. Our greatness lies in our potential. It always has. We have believed in innovation and in the promise of tomorrow. When we have said “we are the best,” we have always known that it was because of what we will do, not what we have done. This is the essence of the exceptionalist argument— that tomorrow must be better than today. But we stopped that progress the day we were led to accept that we were already exceptional—that we no longer have to fight for it. Today, we aren’t. But tomorrow, we can be. And that is what makes us great. ■
Volume XVI, Issue VII • October 13, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
Interview With Hong Kong Student Protester Jonathan Lau by Evan Harary ’16, Contributing Writer Jonathan Lau is a student at City University Hong Kong, where he studies linguistics. He has been an active participant in the Occupy Central movement since its inception last March, attending protests and helping to ensure student demonstrators receive legal representation. Explain some of the events that led to the protests as they stand.
At the heart of this conflict is the core principle of “one nation, two systems,” as established in the 1997 treaty. Hong Kong practices basic law while China’s laws are based on the Chinese Communist Party’s agenda. When these two legal systems clash, the National People’s Congress (NPC) arbitrates. The rulings of the NPC become the new law. And does Hong Kong send representatives to the NPC?
Yes, the Special Administrative Regions (SAR) send delegations to the NPC. But because China is so huge, the Hong Kong delegation has no chance of defending its interests. Also, postturnover, Mainland interests have seeped into Hong Kong politics, so that we can no longer trust our own representatives. Do Mainland interests play into domestic (Hong Kong) policy as well?
Yes. Mainlanders have been coming to Hong Kong for decades in search of economic opportunities. Mainlanders give birth on Hong Kong soil to gain permanent residency. The Hong Kong Democratic Party occupies a third of the seats in the legislative council. The rest are pro-government. A two-thirds majority is needed to pass legislation, so if even one Democratic representative defects, Hong Kong residents cannot see their will in legislation. How have these politicians been elected to the council if they don’t represent Hong Kong?
Well, the city-wide legislative council is elected from local councils, which are theoretically elected by the people. But on all levels the Chinese throw money to their preferred candidates. Many votes are bought. How has this state of affairs contributed to the formation of Occupy Central?
Government officials, with no referendum or electoral mandate, decided that a committee of 1200 would nominate candidates. Chinese interests are heavily overrepresented in this committee, so the Chinese government can essentially handpick Hong Kong’s Chief Executive. In the 2007 election, the three candidates were CY Leung, a representative of the
6 the JHU POLITIK
Hong Kong democracy party, and the second in command from the interim administration. The Democratic candidate obviously did not pass the committee, so the people of Hong Kong were stuck between a rock and a hard place. This was not universal suffrage, but the promise of a reformed system in 2017 was reassuring. When, recently, the Chinese government announced that nomination restrictions would continue through 2017, the student boycott began. In response, CY Leung announced a public forum in which 800 people could meet with representatives of the administration and discuss reform. This was to take place in a public protest area. Hong Kong police walled in this area, violating this promise of a public forum. In response, students poured in and began to make their stand in this area, Central, hence Occupy Central. A few days later the police began to surround these protestors. The people, in response, began to surround the police to ensure the protestors could get supplies. The police began to use more violent tactics to disperse protesters. This only attracted more protesters. Demonstrators camped out in Central, Mong Kok, and Admiralty. It was really a peaceful protest–anybody could see that–but the government responded violently. In Mong Kok, armed thugs attacked protesters, and the police did nothing to stop them. We have videos indicating the government hired these “anti-protestors,” but you couldn’t find these videos on any mainstream news site. You have to turn to alternative sources to see what’s really happening. For example–this may be rumor–but many protesters believe that CY Leung is trying to manufacture another Tiananmen Square to draw fire towards his political rivals in Beijing. Who knows whether this is true, but you have to consider everything, not just tune into TVB and swallow the official version of the news. Do protesters fear another Tiananmen Square?
No. We have received no real response from the government, and that is what truly scares us. What can we do if our efforts are ignored? Start a war? All we want is to have a voice in our government. We are not afraid of the Chinese Government. We are worried about our future. ■
• October 13, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue VII
Libertarianism and the Political Right
L
by Alexander Grable ’15, Contributing Writer
ibertarians argue that their commitment to maximum liberty and minimal government distinguishes them from mainstream conservative thought. With their personal support for legalized substances, gay marriage, and deregulation, they seem to have a point. Despite these seemingly appealing attributes, libertarianism has ties to parts of the right that most of its adherents are either unaware of or vehemently deny. An examination of Ayn Rand in conjunction with Mises demonstrates that libertarianism is quite a dangerous ideology. Ayn Rand remains popular among libertarians, who widely read and cite her novels Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. What did Rand believe? And what does this say about Libertarians? Rand repeatedly emphasized the importance of action as a prerequisite to a thriving life. By examining her characters’ actions, we can examine her ideas. Her protagonists are “creators” who struggle to have their creative genius recognized against the machinations of jealous “looters.” Purposeful and resilient, these heroes emerge triumphant. Yet, I would venture that these heroes are sociopaths. Roark and Rearden from Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged respectively rape their female love interests (the women in question enjoy being raped). Think about the implications of that for libertarian thought on the ideal individual. Francisco, one of Rand’s protagonists, brags about building shoddy workers’ housing under a Mexican government contract. The buildings will collapse soon and kill the workers. This is good, however, because taxpayer funded housing is an evil. In his book Socialism, libertarian thinker Ludwig von Mises argued that although the idea of property initially came from the strong seizing things from the weak, this phenomenon was acceptable, even ideal. Von Mises wrote to Rand, after reading Atlas Shrugged: “You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.” In sum, libertarians prize the decisive, innovative and resilient individual doing what she will regardless of what others may think in order to have her proper place at the top of society
recognized. In other words, libertarians would like to see themselves as heroes in a Rand novel. In his book The Reactionary Mind, Corey Robin points to the similarity between fascism and libertarianism in their conception of the heroic individual. Robin compares Hitler’s rhetoric of the heroic individual capitalist with Rand’s. The two sound similar. Replace Mises’ innovators with Herrenvolk (master race) and the masses with Untermenschen (sub-human) and you could have a Nazi screed. Ragnar Danneskjöld from Atlas Shrugged, a Robin Hood in reverse, could be pulled straight out the image of the “Verdun Man,” an image that provided a source of great inspiration to the German right. Libertarians see themselves as these heroic individuals, the implication from this being that if you are somehow deemed a “parasite” by the libertarians, you must be willing to submit yourself and accept whatever the “innovators” deign to grant you. As they are necessary, you are superfluous. The implications of a libertarian state are thus monstrous. Many libertarians wish to restrict the state purely to its coercive functions: courts, the military and the police. Polanyi pointed out that libertarians use the state to create and enforce their desired society. The support of libertarians such as Mises and Friedrich von Hayek for Pinochet’s regime underscores the dictatorial nature of the creation and maintenance of a libertarian society. Even if libertarian coercion against you is just your employer firing you and badmouthing you to other employers, with an absence of public welfare programs, this would be social murder. Voters, given the constraints in the libertarian state, cannot vote to levy taxes for the purpose of providing government housing, old age pensions, or other things the libertarians deem a “theft.” Voters would be restricted to choosing various faces to represent them in an unchanging “free” society. If your vote cannot change policy, can you truly be said to be free? No. Yet, libertarians profess to want to create a society based on “maximum freedom” and “minimal government.” What they would create is a purely coercive state where power is exclusively concentrated in their hands. Rich libertarian political donors such as the Koch brothers already have a lot of power. This is frightening. ■
Volume XVI, Issue VII • October 13, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Lima:
A Test in Political Stability and Development by Robert Locke ’15, Staff Writer
O
n October 5, millions of people in Lima made their way to the polls to elect a mayor. News of the election, however, did not make headlines outside of Peru, even though its results are likely to have a profound effect on the city’s development. Lima is home to almost a third of Peru’s thirty million people and stands as a primary economic force within the country. This election has the potential to deeply affect Peru as a whole. Susana Villarán, Lima’s current and first female mayor, is a human rights lawyer by training. Last week she lost her bid for reelection by almost 40 points. This historic margin signifies a deep-seated discontent among the citizens with her administration, the political climate and the direction in which the city is headed. Villarán’s predecessor, Luis Castañeda, won the three-way election with a resounding 50.7 percent of the vote. Understandably, the significance of this result might not be so apparent. Villarán has taken a very aggressive approach to pursuing new public works projects and ideas in order to improve the corruption-plagued patronage system that has become commonplace in Lima. Villarán’s primary failure was her inability to effectively tout her administration’s accomplishments, something for which she became notorious. Many of her primary initiatives were transportation-related, including the Corredor Azul, a uniform fleet of buses on principal avenues in the city aimed at reducing congestion and the general chaos of small, privately-run combis. Moreover, she oversaw the enforcement of fixed salaries for individual bus drivers working 16-hour days without any benefits. Even small initiatives like getting bus drivers to stop at only marked stops were met with resistance. To further her political woes, Villarán underestimated the need to sell her ideas politically and to Lima’s various stakeholders. Castañeda has already suggested that he will likely do away with the Corredor Azul program. It is unclear whether he will pursue a necessary alternative form of transportation or just maintain the status quo with a system that contributes significantly to pollution, poor pedestrian safety, and general disorder.
8 the JHU POLITIK
A major reason for Castañeda’s popularity in Lima was his push to develop staircases in impoverished, hard-toaccess areas of the city during his administration. These infrastructure projects were prime political selling points and an example of tangible improvements that the Villarán administration failed to pursue. However, the construction of these staircases, while valuable improvements, mostly signify an investment in political capital, not unlike a lot of social projects seen in the more left-leaning countries of South America such as Venezuela, which has hardly become a model for economic stability and progress. Future administrations need to invest in the people of Lima, their health, education and security while the resources to do so during the current economic boom are still present. Lima’s political climate has been persistently volatile. Control of the city frequently shifts between parties and ideologies, depriving Lima of the kind of consistency necessary to develop, implement, and nurture the sustainable development of the city. Peru’s gross domestic product grew more than 5 percent in 2013. Signs of this growth are clearly visible in Lima: enormous infrastructure projects, such as elevated metro lines and a new ten-mile underground expressway, are underway in the city. However, as evidenced by the thirty years it took to construct the first of five elevated metro lines, frequent changes in political regime and ideology have and continue to pose significant risks to the consistent, forward progress a city like Lima can make. Only time will tell what kind of changes the new administration will usher in and whether the critical infrastructure projects that will enable Lima to meet the needs of its residents will be completed. The current economic boom that Peru and much of Latin America is experiencing may only last so long, especially considering the vicious commoditiesbased boom and bust cycles that consistently plague Latin America. If political divides and ideological inconsistencies obstruct real progress in the city, millions of Limeños may miss a critical window of opportunity to take crucial steps to establish Lima as a major, better-organized, and more livable metropolis. ■
• October 13, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue VII
Project Homeless Connect: Centralizing Services for Baltimore’s Poor by Rebecca Grenham ’16, Staff Writer
L
ast Thursday, a slew of nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and activist groups serving the homeless community gathered at the Baltimore Convention Center for the third annual Project Homeless Connect. Their goal was simple: to provide resources to the homeless in a single space, so that the 2,000 event attendees could travel easily from table to table and receive multiple services on the same day. The services offered included medical and dental care, information on shelters and housing, and legal and financial advice. Attendees included homeless youth, families, and single men and women. Project Homeless Connect reduces the barriers that block homeless individuals from receiving services. By putting all services in the same place at the same time, the event efficiently links homeless individuals and families with various resources. The hope is that, within a short timespan, event attendees will leave with resources that may otherwise take weeks or months to obtain. To make the event as productive and beneficial as possible, Project Homeless Connect proactively examines what barriers can typically prevent homeless individuals from receiving services. The first barrier is cost. For many, the money necessary for travelling to and from various offices to receive certain documentation is unattainable. Project Homeless Connect addresses this concern by covering transportation costs and by waiving the fees required by some forms of documentation, such as photo ID cards. Costs aside, the event makes services more accessible to the homeless community by addressing many of the bureaucratic processes that often inhibit access to services. For example, both a photo ID and Social Security card are required to prove eligibility for Medicaid, food stamps, and other vital benefits. But, in order to receive a photo ID, one must present a Social Security card, and in order to receive a social security card, one must possess photo ID, or a similar form of documentation such as a health insurance card. To receive both, one must present a birth certificate. This means that individuals without any of these three forms of documentation—a common phenomenon in the homeless community—are denied access to a variety of resources and
opportunities. Project Homeless Connect can temporarily stop the ID crisis by placing the Motor Vehicle Association next to the Social Security Office, allowing them to verify with one another that the event attendee is an American citizen or legal resident and is eligible for that form of documentation. The event also helps solve the ID crisis among homeless individuals by directly addressing the difficulty of obtaining documentation without a permanent address. For example, obtaining a Maryland photo ID card requires proof of residency, often in the form of a utility bill or rental agreement. While some homeless individuals may be able to prove residency by showing that they live in a shelter, for many on the street this is not feasible. Moreover, a photo ID is often mailed to individuals at their home address, which is clearly not an option for those on the street or in temporary accommodation. Because Project Homeless Connect provides all services onsite, a participant who typically sleeps on the street can leave with a photo ID in hand. The event also de-stigmatizes the homeless community through the use of volunteer guides. These guides, mostly students at Baltimore universities or representatives of local businesses, are paired with an event attendee to help the participant navigate the event. In the process, the guide learns more about the attendee’s life and story, developing a deeper understanding of homelessness and its many causes and consequences. The attendee, on the other hand, is treated with dignity and respected, a luxury quite rare for a population that is often shunned and ignored. I spent my summer planning Project Homeless Connect, and quickly learned how unattainable many resources are to homeless individuals due to these various barriers. I spoke with numerous service providers and volunteers about how we can address these problems by centralizing services and remaining sensitive to the needs of the homeless community. After two months of planning, I can quite confidently explain what barriers homeless people face and how to best reduce them. I still cannot explain, however, why these barriers exist. ■
Volume XVI, Issue VII • October 13, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
The Digital Divide Must Be Closed by Shannon Libaw ’15, Staff Writer
I
n 2014, everyone seems to always be looking at their phone for some purpose: reading an email or a news article, responding to a text message, or, perhaps most commonly, checking social media. Whether we like it or not, technology is an integral part of our lives and will continue to be. It is increasingly important not only that we understand how to navigate devices such as computers and cell phones, but also how to obtain consistent access to the Internet. We tend to think of technology as an equalizer between the United States and lower income countries, as if modern technology will always reduce inequality and poverty. And in some ways, it has. However, modern technology has often done the opposite in the United States. Technology actually plays a role in perpetuating inequality. For the most part, technological devices provide the same benefits to everyone who use them. The same general applications exist on all iPhone, which seems to set some sort of an equality standard by giving iPhone users access to the same resources. In lower income countries, technology (including household items as well as communications devices and Internet access) has facilitated daily life for many people. According to ZDNet, a business technology website, “Infocommunications technology has played a significant role to reduce poverty and alleviate inequalities in India, albeit mostly in city areas, according to industry watchers.” Supposedly, countries can remedy their general lack of modern infrastructure or low income with modern technology. It puts them and higher income countries on a more equal footing in terms of information and standards of living. Although modern technology holds promise for maintaining a decent standard of living for many people, substantial inequalities in the United States have arisen. Gaps in knowledge about how and why to use the Internet divide users. According to the Pew Research Center, 15 percent of Americans don’t use the Internet. When inquired as to why, 32 percent of these respondees said it wasn’t easy to use, and 34 and 7 percent said it wasn’t physically available to them or that they didn’t have access to it.
that approximately 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies exclusively accept job applications online. The article also quotes John Horrigan, Vice President of policy research at a company called TechNet, who said that “So many important transactions take place online. If you don’t have access to high-speed Internet, you’re missing out on a lot.” What you’re missing out on is often employment and higher income. When people must go elsewhere other than their home for Internet, or if they cannot afford or navigate basic technology, they will not be able to fill out job applications, search for jobs or classes, or communicate with others online through email. And, nearly all industries require some type of proficiency with email, Microsoft Word, or a basic type of communication technology. Thus, all of these factors play a significant role in perpetuating unemployment and income inequality. Technological disparities create divides within information access and usage, such as political news and social media campaigns. Relevant news is not only on TV, but also on the Internet and phone applications. For example, AMBER or emergency weather alerts contact Smartphones, alerting the public to a child’s disappearance or when, for example, a tornado is coming. These notifications serve a fundamental, simple service: they keep people safe. Disparities in access to social media also take a toll. Websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Yelp are all a means for connecting with others and sharing important information, such as voting dates or other political news. People can additionally provide recommendations or social support through these networks. Exclusion from these sites therefore prevents individuals from updates on occurrences in their communities. Besides a lack of unemployment opportunities and information, when those without even a cell phone see others holding the latest iPhone or tablet, they feel a sense of exclusion. Narrowing the technology gap will create a more inclusive society where more people will be informed and have access to the opportunities that they deserve. ■
Disparities in Internet access create divides within the labor market. For example, a Huffington Post article mentioned
10 the JHU POLITIK
• October 13, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue VII
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
Volume XVI, Issue VII • October 13, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
11