JHU POLITIK
the
I
APRIL 13, 2015
VOLUME XVII, ISSUE XI
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
MARYLAND EDITOR David Hamburger
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad WEBMASTER Ben Lu MARKETING & PUBLICITY Chiara Wright FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
CAMPUS EDITOR Juliana Vigorito
STAFF WRITERS Olga Baranoff Dylan Cowit Arpan Ghosh Alexander Grable Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Evan Harary Shrenik Jain Shannon Libaw Robert Locke Morley Musick Sathvik Namburar Corey Payne Zachary Schlosberg
• April 13, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue XI
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
The Price of Planning for an Unpopular Contingency
Julia Allen ’15
Anti-Semitism: Back to Stay?
Evan Harary ’16 Baltimore’s Homicide Policy and the Death of Steven Jackson Lawanya Singh ’17 It’s Still a Rape on Campus William Theodorou ’18 The Obama Doctrine George Gulino ’18 Let’s Rebuild America Corey Payne ’17 The Civil War, 150 Years Later: A War of Left Versus Right
Alexander Grable ’15
Editorials, Bylaws, and Apathy:
The Sham of Civic Life on Campus
P. Nash Jenkins ’15
Volume XVII, Issue XI • April 13, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
The Price of Planning for an Unpopular Contingency
A
by Julia Allen ’15, Head Writer
lthough unable to turn away from the irregular/ guerrilla warfare in the Middle East, the U.S. Department of Defence (DoD) has recognized the need to direct more attention to states with ambitious “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) programs that could potentially leverage high-tech weapons systems against U.S. assets and allies. It is no secret that China and Iran are the two main sources of concern when it comes to hostile A2/AD programs, but this article will speak to the widespread criticism of America’s efforts to establish credible countermeasures to China’s increasingly capable A2/AD program. If the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) efforts ever came to fruition, this capability could be leveraged to carry out an increasing number of land-grabs from China’s neighbors – or, in an extreme case, an attempt to take Taiwan – with the knowledge that other militaries could not immediately step in. In 2011, the DoD established the Air Sea Battle Office (ASBO), and although it did not formulate policy or military plans, it had the potential to reorient the U.S. military in the face of a high-tech threat. Due to some inter-service bickering, the program has been reformatted and given a new title – Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC) – but the effort develop a more effective response to hostile A2/AD programs lives on. Whether or not these initiatives have been effective is a discussion in and of itself; most of the criticisms directed at the ASBO and its successor question the rationale behind having such a program in the first place. Critics of ASBO – and, presumably, its successor – argue that these programs are inflammatory and unnecessary since China’s leadership has proclaimed its dedication to “peaceful development,” and many observers argue that China has more to gain by participating in the world order than overthrowing it. A dismissive answer to this approach could be to point out that China’s claims of being a responsible world power are nothing but lies, evidenced by Gaven Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Johnson South Reef, and Fiery Cross. However, there is a more detailed argument that can explain why preparing for hostile A2/AD efforts in the Pacific Command is not just assuming the worst of a competitor. The first island chain that surrounds China’s eastern and southern shorelines plays a key role in forming China’s
4 the JHU POLITIK
understanding of its own strategic security posture. The first island chain begins with Japan and includes the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the Greater Sunda Islands. China perceives the vulnerability of its seabased economic trade, access to natural resources, and its mainland’s national security to the foreign powers on the first island chain. While international law only recognizes claims to resources that lie within 320 kilometers from a state’s coast, China argues that its claims to resources and territory within the first island chain were in existence before the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) law was ratified by the United Nations in 1994. Ignoring the legitimacy of China’s offshore claims is considered to be an affront to Chinese history in a region where the People’s Republic of China (PRC) considers itself to be the dominant force. The Chinese government views America’s presence as a force that emboldens members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – which includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam – as well as members of the first island chain, and prevents the unification of Taiwan with the mainland. Because of this, the PLAN has focused intently on developing its A2/AD force aimed at negating the U.S. Navy’s presence in the South and East China Seas. Considering China’s historical baggage and America’s military alliances that tie it to the region, it is pretty clear that there are likely scenarios short of a U.S.China conflict in which U.S. access to the South and East China sea would be essential to maintain. Currently, the PLAN could not deny the U.S. Navy access from a cross-strait conflict for an extended period of time. However, this dynamic could change as the PLAN goes through with its planned development if the United States does not take this effort seriously. Programs like JAM-GC should be understood as an effort to ensure that China cannot establish a monopoly in the region at the expense of smaller states. If countries like Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines did not have security treaties with the United States – or if these treaties were to stay in tact, but U.S. forces were prevented from effectively playing a role in the theater of a potential conflict due to A2/AD efforts – then these states would have a lot less bargaining power when negotiating with their large neighbor. Although establishing JAM-GC might ruffle some feathers, developing a response to China’s A2/AD capabilities is necessary. ■
• April 13, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue XI
Anti-Semitism: Back to Stay?
by Evan Harary ’16, Staff Writer
A
ctress Lena Dunham published a column in March 30 edition of The New Yorker titled “Dog or Jewish Boyfriend?” In it, Dunham gives thirty-five attributes “listicle” style with which one could describe a dog or Dunham’s Jewish significant other. The piece drew ire from many sources including the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, which labeled Dunham’s essay as “tasteless” and alleged that it “played with offensive stereotypes about Jews.” Many defend Dunham (who is Jewish herself, as is David Remnick, the editor who ran the essay) and argue that she falls within a hallowed tradition of Jewish self-satire stretching from Groucho Marx to Seth Rogen. But offensive or not, Dunham’s article is anything but well-timed: it debuted amidst what many argue is the greatest resurgence of anti-Semitism in the last sixty years. Anti-Semitic hate crimes are on the rise, particularly in Europe. Around the same time as the January attack on the creators of Charlie Hebdo, four Jews were murdered in a Kosher supermarket. The latter event received international attention, but it was not the first incident to target European Jews and/ or Jewish establishments in recent years – in 2012, three young children and a rabbi were gunned down at a Jewish school in Toulouse; in May 2014, a gunman opened fire in the Jewish Museum in Brussels, killing four. This past year, Neo-Nazi parties have also become an alarmingly large presence within European politics. In Germany, the National Democratic Party, whose former leader openly praised Adolf Hitler and alleged that no more than 34,000 Jews died in the Holocaust, garnered 300,000 votes in the recent European Union elections and thus won a seat in the European Parliament. Additionally, from Scandinavia to Greece, the European far right freely employs Nazi iconography. Whatever the cause, anti-Semitism has become a startling reality in European politics. As a result, Jews are fleeing Europe en masse for the first time since World War II. But why now, after half a century of relative peace, is antiSemitism back on the rise? Part of it has to do with Israel’s growing unpopularity, particularly after its controversial activities in Gaza last year. In Berlin, a rally in support of Gaza devolved into chants of “Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone!” Outrage at Israeli activity in Gaza is
understandable, but blaming Jews for Israeli policy is no more acceptable than blaming people of Chinese descent for the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Many fear that hatred towards Israel will spark – and may even seem to justify – a wider trend of anti-Semitism. Another factor explaining the recent rise in anti-Semitism is widespread alienation and economic stagnation, as well as an overall failure to assimilate immigrant populations. Economic stagnation and anti-Semitism have historically gone hand-inhand – interwar Germany was stricken with a grave economic crisis and turned to demagoguery and bigoted politics as a result. Today, roughly half of Spaniards and Greeks, amongst whom unemployment is rampant, express unfavorable views of Jews. This effect is particularly potent among recent immigrants, many of them from former European colonies in the Middle East and North Africa, who have few economic opportunities and little chance to integrate successfully into established European society. Poor neighborhoods where recent immigrants settle are often a source of recruits for radical organizations as well as a breeding ground for antiSemitism. But the blame for this return of anti-Semitism cannot be saddled on immigrant populations alone; some allege that anti-Semitism is, altogether, becoming too normal a part of European life. “Anti-Semitism is not only a problem related to the Muslim community. Many citizens of German origin also cling to anti-Semitic stereotypes,” writes a reporter for Der Spiegel, a German magazine. “These prejudices are the breeding ground of hatred for everything Jewish.” In America, anti-Semitism is hard to fathom precisely because there is so little of it. But the fact is that anti-Semitism has been a reality of Jewish life for millennia and, after what seemed to be a brief respite, is now beginning to regain prominence. European authorities have taken strides to stop it, and many politicians deserve commendation for their full-throated support of European Jewish populations. But, as the outrage toward Lena Dunham’s essay shows, many Jews are worried. Time will tell the extent to which these worries are justified. ■
Volume XVII, Issue XI • April 13, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
Baltimore’s Homicide Policy and the Death of Steven Jackson by Lawanya Singh ’17, Contributing Writer
O
n Saturday, April 4, a spate of shootings in Baltimore City left three dead. These incidents followed a violent week that included a string of five shootings in West Baltimore. Among those killed on Saturday was Steven Jackson, the nephew of City Council president Bernard “Jack” Young. Police, who found Jackson shot in the head in broad daylight, have yet to identify suspects in either the West Baltimore shootings or Jackson’s death. This surge in shootings represents the latest series of incidents in the City’s homicide rate, a decades-old problem that continues to plague Baltimore. The shootings also highlight the failure of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to close nearly half of all homicide cases. Steven Jackson’s high profile death has received significant media attention, forcing the BPD to re-evaluate its homicide operations. The recent shootings shed light on serious challenges facing the Baltimore Police Department’s efforts to prevent and solve homicides. This year, the homicide department’s clearance rate is 53.7 percent, meaning that nearly half of all homicide cases go unclosed. According to The Baltimore Sun, the national average for homicide clearance in cities comparable in size to Baltimore is more than 57 percent. Baltimore’s higher-than-average homicide rates, when compared both to the national average and previous years (54 have been recorded thus far in 2015), compound issues of lower-than-average clearance rates. Recent reforms instituted in the Baltimore City Police force, including a move to increase the number of hours officers serve on duty, have proven largely ineffective in combating the increase of shootings and homicides. In response to the most recent violence, the BPD initiated “tactical alert operations” procedures, whereby it will prioritize responses and send officers only to calls deemed serious in nature. According to Baltimore City Police Commissioner Anthony Batts, “We [the Police Department] can refocus our organization as a whole” with the tactical alert. Echoing the Commissioner’s focus on preventing serious
6 the JHU POLITIK
crimes, Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby recently announced that Baltimore is now trying to concentrate on punishing repeat offenders in an attempt to lower the city’s crime rate. These changes come as the Police Department announced that it would be seeking help from a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, the Police Executive Research Forum, in reviewing its handling of homicide cases. Representatives of the Department of Justice-sponsored program will follow homicide detectives along the entirety of a case – from initial reporting of a crime to the closure of a case file – in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the BPD’s current approach. Time will tell whether feedback from the Forum will be taken seriously, signifying changes for the current policy, or whether these actions constitute merely a desperate PR stunt at a time when BPD homicide practices are drawing increasing scrutiny. If indicative of a broader reform effort, the measures taken by Baltimore City and the Police Department after the events of the past week could foreshadow changes in their respective policies. But what led to this sudden re-evaluation? Last week’s shooting of Quintin Twyman, garnered little media attention – but the death of Steven Jackson, nephew of the City Council President, and the resultant public outcry has apparently compelled both internal and external reviews of BPD homicide practice. Had Jackson or a highprofile member of the city not been murdered, the Police Department may have continued with its current, flawed strategies. Instead, by seeking outside help and implementing changes in its operations such as the tactical alert, the BPD appears to be tacitly acknowledging internal concern about its handling of homicides, and considering that its current crime-solving strategies need to be reformed. It took the killing of a government official’s family member for the BPD to realize their internal failures. Now, with internal scrutiny and external oversight, it remains to be seen whether the BPD will succeed in enacting meaningful reforms – reforms that will contribute to a decrease in Baltimore’s crime rate and make the city safer for all citizens, regardless of their familial ties. ■
• April 13, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue XI
It’s Still a Rape on Campus by William Theodorou ’18, Contributing Writer
L
ast November, Rolling Stone published an article recounting the gruesome gang rape of an anonymous student “Jackie,” at a fraternity house at the University of Virginia. Soon after its publication, the author of the article, Sabrina Erdely, came under fire for inconsistencies and falsehoods found in her piece, which amassed some 2.7 million views. In light of ever-surmounting evidence, Rolling Stone enlisted Steve Coll, the Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, to research how an article of such magnitude managed to stray so far into the unsubstantiated. On April 5, Rolling Stone released an abridged version of the Columbia report, and Will Dana, Managing Editor of Rolling Stone, officially retracted the story. In his editorial note, Dana described the shortcomings of the piece as both “individual” and “institutional.” Coll’s report attributes a majority of the faults to the attempts to appease Jackie. In respecting the delicate nature of Jackie’s situation, Erdely granted her too much space; when Erdely asked to speak with Ryan Duffin, one of the friends mentioned in the article, Jackie said that he had refused to comment due to his Greek affiliation. In the article itself, Erdely reported Duffin’s silence without ever having spoken with him. In an interview for Coll’s report, Duffin claimed that the conversation between him and Jackie “never happened.” Had Erdely attempted to contact Duffin, she may have questioned her source’s account more closely. The Charlottesville Police Department conducted its own investigation, which was cited by Coll, and concluded that there is no evidence to support the Rolling Stone article. Moreover, the Police Department discovered that in 2012, the year of the alleged gang rape, there were no brothers of Phi Kappa Psi working as lifeguards, contrary to Jackie’s allegations. The report also uncovered the transcripts of the meeting between Jackie and the Assistant Dean of Students, Nicole Eramo. According to their findings, Jackie told Eramo that she was forced to perform oral sex on several men, an account widely different from what was described in the article but is nonetheless considered sexual assault. The transcript made no reference to any of the gruesome details Jackie recounted for Erdely or to the involvement of hazing in the rape.
It is undeniable that the Rolling Stone article is riddled with gaps; a majority of its details were unsubstantiated, and it maligned the reputation of a fraternity and all its members. The Columbia Review went further and predicted the consequences of a failure so large; the deterioration of the journalistic process is a mere footnote in comparison to the setback that the fight against college rape culture will experience. Rape culture is tightly wound within every campus; the normalization of rape based on societal perspectives of gender and sexuality verges on innate. But in writing the article, Erdely had hoped to illustrate the way in which many college administrations and student bodies respond to rape, or better yet, fail to respond to rape. The article attempted to expose a situation that occurs too often; a victim is left without support while an assaulter continues to roam free. Erdely wanted to deliver some small victory to rape survivors by bringing their story to the forefront, but instead managed only to propagate the myths that shroud rape culture; Coll states that the repudiation of this story may lead people to incorrectly believe that women conjure rape allegations when only two to eight percent of reported cases are unfounded. It is easy, almost pleasing, to believe that Jackie lied about being raped, but it is more plausible that she was assaulted and over-exaggerated the circumstances surrounding that night. Unfortunately, the public seems more concerned with the veracity of the article than Jackie’s well-being or the well-being of other rape survivors nationwide; an Ivy League graduate school has mobilized against poor journalism, but who has mobilized in the name of reform? It is unclear what happened to Jackie the night of September 28, 2012. The police report was unable to corroborate the Rolling Stone article, but at the same time did not deny that Jackie was assaulted. Whether or not each detail from the article is true is perhaps irrelevant; rape is rape, and college campuses are struggling to maintain a safe environment. To a degree, the retraction of the article itself is irrelevant: even though an ideal is muddied by the failure of a few fallible humans, the ideal itself is not negated. Rape culture remains a problem. Jackie was likely assaulted in some manner, and action must be taken to protect victims in the future. ■
Volume XVII, Issue XI • April 13, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
The Obama Doctrine
I
by George Gulino ’18, Contributing Writer
n recent months, President Obama has engaged in conspicuous legacy consolidation. Taking advantage of flexibility gained from the passing of the midterm elections, he issued an executive order ushering in sweeping immigration reform and finally vetoed the Keystone Pipeline. Negotiations with Iran to settle the decade-long nuclear dispute have accelerated, culminating in the recent first draft agreement that was heralded as a success by some and notably reviled as a Chamberlain-esque failure by others.
Obama quickly summoned prominent New York Times columnist Tom Friedman to the Oval Office to discuss the Iran deal. Their exchange turned out to be something more significant. Obama did not speak as though he were seeking out donations and sound bytes at an Iowa campaign stop; he was using more academic rhetoric to discuss his foreign policy philosophy and it implications. As Friedman hinted, this very much resembled the handing down of the Obama Doctrine. Obama was explaining himself to and hoping to influence the opinion of serious Washington-watchers and future textbook writers. Ignoring drones and kill-lists, the real story he attempted to focus on is his preference for moderation and diplomatic solutions. On his watch, the seemingly irresolvable isolation of Burma, Cuba, and Iran by the United States has been and continues to be reversed. The President’s explanation for these turnarounds is also the way he self-described the Obama Doctrine: “We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.” Obama explained that the U.S.’ economic and military might is so overwhelming that it need not maneuver against these aforementioned countries as it may against a fellow superpower. Are the United States’ core security interests threatened by opening up trade with Cuba? Is Burma likely to concoct attacks on American soil? The U.S. can sustain Obama’s trial and error approach to opening up small hostile states. Many may agree, but not extend this logic to Iran, a much larger state. As the President points out, though, the U.S.’s military budget dwarfs that of Iran at almost twenty times
8 the JHU POLITIK
the size. This disparity is sufficient to deter Iran without having to hollow out a few cities. It also reinforces the need for Iran to abide by the terms of the treaty. Yet, true to the Doctrine’s moderation, mechanisms are in place to prevent the use of force. Inspectors will be placed at every nuclear facility, and American negotiators are positioned to include in the final draft a provision to allow a third party to determine whether suspicions about other sites warrant a visit. Notification of noncompliance will come at least a year ahead of time instead of the current three months. This makes Israel and the United States safer for the steep price of opening up new markets and getting cheaper oil. While opening up countries like Iran without regime change clearly deprioritizes the Bush-era insistence on spreading liberal democracy, Obama also expressed a desire to recalibrate relationships with allies. He promised to help Sunni Arab allies combat external threats like ISIS as long as they agree to deal with internal issues such as what he ventured to call nihilistic ideology, perhaps a nod to the House of Saud’s Wahhabism. When was the last time you heard a sitting president use the word nihilistic, let alone deal an offhand insult to the Saudis? Obama also repeatedly emphasized his affection for and commitment to Israel. However, he distanced himself from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s positions and insisted that he should be able to disagree with an Israeli policy without being accused of abandoning Israel. Finally, Obama also attempted to make clear that he was not looking for oil or territory in the region, just peace and stability as a relief from barrel bombs and Sunni extremists. The message of the Obama Doctrine is clear. For at least the next year and a half, and as long as successive leaders look back at it the way others have looked to Truman, Eisenhower, or Nixon, the U.S. will be looking for peace instead of provocation and stability instead of regime change. It will expect its Muslim and Jewish allies to behave with similar moderation, and they would be wise to rein in their excess accordingly. ■
• April 13, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue XI
Let’s Rebuild America
A
by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
nyone who has taken an American history class will remember learning about the industrial era – and they will likely remember the important role that railroads, steam engines, and canals played in it. The succeeding progressive era saw an increase in rights for the workers in these sectors, but it did not see a decline in the progression of American infrastructure. Instead, even through the greatest economic depression in history, we led the world’s innovation in transportation and civil engineering. There has long been a connection between the innovation of our infrastructure and the growth of our economy. The periods of the greatest industrial performance were also the periods of the greatest advancements in transportation, architecture, and civil engineering. From the Erie Canal to the Hoover Dam, our infrastructure has not just accompanied growth, it has caused it. But as we have moved further into an economy of financialization and computer technology, we seem to have forgotten the vital importance of roads, bridges, and civil services to our nation’s economic performance and social welfare. In the last two decades, we have shifted our emphasis away from these projects. The 2015 Global Competitive Report from the World Economic Forum ranks the United States twelfth in overall infrastructure – a ranking that has declined in the past decade. According to a Hill report, 4000 of our dams are deficient, 9 percent of our levees are likely to fail during a major flood, 40 percent of our highways are congested, one third of our roads are in poor condition, and 45 percent of Americans lack access to any transit system at all. Yet we spend less than 2.5 percent of our GDP on infrastructure – the lowest in the past score; it’s half as much as Europe does, and a quarter as much as China does. Every year, our failing infrastructure costs us over $200 billion. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we would need to spend just over $1.5 trillion in the next five years to fix it – to address its causes instead of reacting to its symptoms.
There is now a bill in the Senate that will do just that. Proposed by Budget Committee chairman Bernie Sanders, the Rebuild America Act invests $1 trillion into our failing infrastructure. But the money will go further than rebuilding our roads and dams – this proactive bill will create 13 million decent-paying, long-term jobs for American workers. The money spent by the government will not only lead to a solution to our infrastructure problem, but it will also push billions of dollars into the economy through the salaries of hard-working men and women who spend their money on everything from groceries to automobiles. Despite the strides that the Obama administration has made, real unemployment still rests above 10 percent of the workforce (this includes the share of the workforce that has settled for part-time work or given up looking, as reported by the Department of Labor). Any reduction in this number not only serves our economy and social consciousness well, it also has the potential to reduce the number of recipients on welfare. Money that isn’t spent on wages can be spent on materials and machinery. By using American corporations and suppliers, this investment will see forward linkages to every construction-based industry imaginable – from steel to mining to heavy machinery, this bill will do countless good for our economy and our society. It’s because of these benefits that the bill is supported across the spectrum, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the largest labor unions. Many Republicans understand the importance of a revitalization of our infrastructure – and many liberals liken the act to a first step in a New “New Deal.” But in today’s politics, even a clear-cut example of a prosperity-wielding government action faces an uphill battle. Opposition to “state-led growth” should be met with legitimate concerns about the scope of the proposed plan, not ideological opposition to the government doing good work. When growth is led by the capitalist class, we will only go in the direction that benefits them. But when we lead our own growth, we will go in the direction that benefits us all. This bill does just that. ■
Volume XVII, Issue XI • April 13, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
The Civil War, 150 Years Later: A War of Left Versus Right
150
by Alexander Grable ’15, Staff Writer
years ago, on April 9, the Civil War ended with the surrender of the Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. The historian Shelby Foote noted that no war has more fundamentally shaped the American character. Yet the Civil War is often characterized as a regional conflict, North versus South. I contend that such a characterization misses the fact that the Civil War was also a war of the American Left versus the American Right, where the Left was represented by the Union; the Right, by the Confederacy. The war was about more than just slavery, although slavery’s importance cannot be overlooked. The war also was one of two contrasting visions of government: a strong, vigorous federal government as opposed to a weak and minimal one. The American Left at the time wanted not only higher tariffs, but a federal income tax, which the Right opposed. The attempts by the South to nullify the results of the 1860 election also echo present day Left versus Right divides over voting. For the American Left, a Right-wing victory is a legitimate outcome whose consequences have to be accepted. This is not so for the Right. Between 1860 and 1865 the American Right was willing to plunge the country into war rather than accept the unfavorable results of an election. Today, they send letters to Iran, in which they vow to a foreign country to undo everything the President is trying to accomplish. However, the results speak for themselves. During the war, Lincoln and Congressed passed left wing legislation. To pay for the war, Congress sharply raised tariffs, excise duties and levied the nation’s first federal income tax. To effectively wage the war, the federal government’s size and responsibilities were expanded. Despite the mounting expense, Lincoln and Congress found money to subsidize education through the Morrill Act of 1862. By contrast, the South fought the war with a weak central government. The results of strong federal government versus a weak one can be seen in the experience of the two sides at war. Rebel soldiers and city dwellers went hungry as their government could not requisition food. By contrast, as American soldiers
10 the JHU POLITIK
were well fed and the agricultural sector boomed, Left-wing ideas about government were vindicated. The South called the Civil War the second American Revolution. They were right, except it was the Union that was fighting it. After the war, however, the American Right successfully managed to take over the narrative of the Civil War, and turned its defeat into victory. Reconstruction was first halted and then turned back. Myths spawned about rebels armed with muskets and hunting rifles besting American soldiers with modern rifles. Rebel casualties in battles were downplayed and American casualties either faithfully reported or exaggerated. This has implanted the subconscious impression in generations of Americans that the soldiers of the Right were “worth” more than the soldiers of the Left. American Generals were demonized and rebel Generals canonized. Ulysses S. Grant became known as a butcher and a drunkard instead of as an innovative and successful General. Robert E. Lee’s treason was represented as a principled stand against ‘fighting’ his native state. This ignores the fact that Lee took an oath to his country, betrayed that oath, and then led an Army which killed tens of thousands of American soldiers. The idea has been to imprint in the minds of the American Left that the victory in the Civil War was so costly that it was not truly worth it and allows the Right, by a sleight of hand, to emerge triumphant. The American Civil War and the issues that caused it play out again and again in American politics. The Left will push hard for greater civil rights, economic rights and a vigorous government. The Right will push back and create myths to turn their defeats into victories, including trying to portray themselves as the inheritors of the Union’s struggle. The attempts by the Right to restrict voting and abolish the income tax are but its latest attempts to overturn the result of the Civil War. We should all ensure that the sacrifices of the soldiers in blue were not in vain. ■
• April 13, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue XI
Editorials, Bylaws, and Apathy: The Sham of Civic Life on Campus
A
by P. Nash Jenkins ’15, Contributing Writer
midst the hysterical uncertainty of last week’s Student Government Association (SGA) election, we learned a few things for certain. We learned that the idea of any sort of democratic spirit at Johns Hopkins is – as we suspected – a tragic farce, and any pretense otherwise can have nasty consequences. We learned that for all the trouble it is reputed to bring, Greek life remains the only entity on this campus with a detectable collective pulse. We were reminded that The News-Letter is capable of doing unspeakably lewd things to the craft of journalism. For the second time in three years, we saw that the bodies that oversee student elections continue to enforce their senselessly restrictive campaign bylaws, only heightening the sham of civic life on campus. For those who avoided Facebook or their friends in Phi Mu last week, I’ll provide a condensed version. Last weekend, members of the undergraduate community had the opportunity to vote online in the election for SGA’s executive board. Of 6,251 undergraduate students, 458 took the time to log onto the ballot website. To put it in perspective, the voter turnout rate in this election – seven percent – was roughly thirteen percent lower than that of Mali, which in the last three years has seen a coup d’état, the suspension of its constitution, and a famously bloody civil war. Maybe Hopkins’ electorate was dismayed by how few choices they had: with the exception of the two students who sought the office of executive vice-president, every other candidate ran unopposed. Perhaps we were unaware that the election was even happening. The News-Letter wants us to know that our indifference was “embarrassing,” and that they’re “absolutely aghast” with our behavior. Their chiding came as a footnote to a longer screed that served as little more than an endorsement for Jack Bartholet, one of the two candidates for the executive vice president and also, by the way, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper. Never mind that Sarah Zappone, his opponent, would soundly defeat him at the polls by fifty percentage points (340 votes to Bartholet’s 93). The newspaper was firm in its conviction that Bartholet was “simply bettersuited to the vice-presidency,” and that Zappone, the only female candidate, was “much more suited to the executive secretary position.”
Zappone would lose after Bartholet reported her for using Phi Mu’s Facebook group to encourage voter turnout. Such a move is apparently a violation of Article IV.2.f.vi and Article IV.2.f.vii, two in the dizzying litany of bylaws maintained by the Committee for Student Elections (CSE). Zappone’s subsequent appeal of her disqualification was backed by a roar of popular support, evidenced in an online petition encouraging the CSE to overturn its decision. The most coherent demands came from Zappone’s sisters in Phi Mu, a testament to Greek life’s potential as a galvanizing social force on campus. Nevertheless, after considering the appeal, CSE kindly maintained the ruling in a verbose letter sent to the student body on Thursday evening. Bartholet became executive vice-president, voted in by less than a hundred of his six thousand classmates. The lion’s share of the blame lies with the CSE, whose regulations are impeccably good at impeding the electoral process. I paraphrase the philosopher Martha Nussbaum: if Zappone violated any laws, they are bad laws, laws that should not have existed. It is unclear to me how, say, posting a link to the ballot website on a private Facebook group is remotely undemocratic, but frankly, I think there are more pressing issues at hand: namely, the abysmal turnout at the polls. This is symptomatic of a larger problem on campus, summarized most succinctly as incompetence. Across the withering field of student life at Hopkins, we see an allegiance to “propriety” or “tradition” that comes at the expense of success. The CSE would rather clumsily emulate campaign bureaucracy than encourage voter turnout; The News-Letter would prefer to waste its time putting together a print newspaper than actually soliciting readership. These students aren’t engaging in student life; they’re putting on a play about engaging in student life, in love with the accoutrements and buzzwords (going to press! Bylaws!) but blithely unconcerned with things that actually matter – readership, votership, engagement. The apathy of the student body has soured its democratic potential, allowing events like last week’s election to transpire with only a momentary flicker of popular concern. ■
Volume XVII, Issue XI • April 13, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
11
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
12 the JHU POLITIK
• April 13, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue XI