the POLITIK PRESS 9/30/13
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XIV, Issue III
Volume XIV, Issue III 1
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
the
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
POLITIK PRESS A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield & Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Katie Botto Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING/PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu
HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts COPY EDITOR Peter Lee STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar Henry Chen Virgil Doyle Rosellen Grant Geordan Williams Chris Winer FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
VOLUME XIV, ISSUE II SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013 2
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW ....................................................................
Page 4
Geordan Williams ’14
POPE FRANCIS AND THE NEW VATICAN ..............................
Page 5
Adrian Carney ’14
“MISS DIVERSTIY”:
NINA DAVULURI AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE TWITTER BACKASH ... Page 6 Abigail Sia ’15
“LEARNING THE LESSONS OF IRAQ:”
WHY BRITAIN WILL NOT INTERVENE MILITARILY IN SYRIA .......... Page 7 Rebecca Grenham ’16
GERMANY TRUSTS MERKEL YET AGAIN, BUT FOR WHAT? ........
Page 8
Dylan Etzel ’17
WESTERN MARYLAND, THE 51st STATE? DON’T LAUGH YET ... Page 9 Rachel Cohen ’14
GLORY AND DECLINE: A LOOK AT BRAZIL’S ECONOMY .......
Page 10
Preston Ge ’17
DON’T ASK ME TO COMPRoMISE ........................................
Page 11
Akshai Bhatnagar ’14
3
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
WEEK IN REVIEW By Geordan Williams ’14, Staff Writer Refugee Boat Sinks off the Coast of Indonesia This past Friday, at least 20 people drowned and many more went missing when a boat carrying asylum seekers sank off of the coast of Indonesia near the island of Java. At least 100 refugees from Lebanon, Pakistan, and Iraq were bound for Indonesia’s capital Jakarta before making the final leg of their journey to Christmas Island, a territory of Australia. Since the 1980s, refugees from war-torn countries around the Indian Ocean have been attempting to reach Christmas Island in order to be granted asylum in Australia. However, the Australian government’s stance toward the asylees is changing. In recent years, the Australian parliament has passed legislation that prevents refugees on Christmas Island from automatically receiving asylum, and has built a detention center to handle the hundreds of refugees that they receive every year.
New Forms of Surveillance Cause Concern in U.S. A recent report revealed that the FBI has spent $3 million on drone deployment. The FBI claims that the drones have only been used for monitoring stationary subjects and to ensure the safety of law enforcement officials. The news comes amidst a debate over the use of new kinds of surveillance technology both abroad and at home. On Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee questioned the NSA on the use of cell phones for tracking private individuals. The Committee is hoping to introduce legislation that would regulate and limit new forms of surveillance under the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Egyptian Court Bans Muslim Brotherhood An Egyptian court in Cairo banned all Muslim Brotherhood activities and ordered the seizure of all Muslim Brotherhood assets this past Monday. The court also ordered that any institution funded by or aiding the Muslim Brotherhood be shut down. Although the court decision was not supposed to take effect for ten days, Egyptian security forces on Wednesday stormed the headquarters of a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated newspaper. Since Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi’s ouster on July 3rd, Egypt has been wracked with protests and security crackdowns, with over 2,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood arrested. Egyptian government officials have claimed that it will allow demonstrations under the Anti-Coup Alliance to continue as long as they remain peaceful, but many remain skeptical. PP
4
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
POPE FRANCIS AND THE NEW VATICAN by Adrian Carney ’14, Contributing Writer
I
n the six brief months since the start of his tenure, Pope Francis has made shockwaves in the news media through several statements. The Pope has criticized the abuse of power by the clergy, criticized capitalism as a “cult of money,” stated that women have a “special voice” in religion, and affirmed that atheists and homosexuals can be good people. His remarks have caused a mixture of elation, skepticism, and disapproval from Catholics all over the globe. Some have proclaimed the pope as a radical, while others have welcomed his seeming open-mindedness. However, any assessments on the Pope’s supposed liberalness should be taken with a grain of salt. The office of the Pope still functions under the weight of Biblical teachings and two thousand years of Christian tradition. While Pope Francis might be a reformer within the Church, he is still far from a progressive outside of the Vatican. What does make Pope Francis exceptional, however, is in how he sets himself apart from the established order, the way in which he structures his statements, and the issues that he chooses to emphasize. In a recent interview with the Jesuit publication, La Civiltà Cattolica, the Vicar of Christ spoke candidly on a number of issues including his time in Argentina, a discussion of religious orders and saints, and his favorite authors and musicians. However, what stood out the most was a blunt criticism of the “obsession” held by many members of the Church over minor aspects of Catholic teaching, and a focus on “small-minded rules” over social issues such as abortion and homosexuality. The Pope did not necessarily disagree with the Church’s long-held beliefs on these issues, but rather downplayed and de-emphasized them. Rather than focusing on issues such as homosexuality and abortion, the Pope has made a concerted effort to emphasize issues of international poverty and social justice. This represents an attempt by the Church to be more inclusive of all cultures and treat other faiths with dignity and respect. These teachings are not new – large segments of it date from the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum and the Vatican II reforms of the 1960s.
However, they have been somewhat sidelined over the past decades, and Pope Francis hopes to make these goals the focus of the Church once again. Although a large majority of Catholics, both in the United States and abroad, approve of the Pope’s new emphasis on poverty and social justice, his proclamations have not swayed the more reactionary believers within the Church. Many disapprove of this shift away from controversial social issues, saying that he is meddling with dogma, naively unaware of the social effects and consequences of recognizing more liberal beliefs. However, it is my belief that this past focus on social conservatism has consistently overreached its aims and has proven to be counterproductive for the Church, its followers, and much of the world. The Church’s prolonged resistance against the usage of condoms, for example, comes across as irresponsible when we take into account the spread of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Yet, these are the type of policies that many have become accustomed to from the long-conservative Church. Granted, sweeping institutional reforms can’t be expected after a handful of interviews and a trip to Brazil. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church remains an extraordinary institution that has survived over two thousand years and thrives with over one billion members today. A major component of that success has been its ability to adapt and reform in the longterm, not just as a political entity but as an organization with immense social reach that influences a worldwide community. Pope Francis is most definitely not a radical, and he likely harbors a number of conservative views. However, if he continues down this path of compassion and pushes for institutional reforms, he will no doubt leave a positive and long-remembered legacy. PP
5
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
“MISS DIVERSTIY”: NINA DAVULURI AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE TWITTER BACKASH by Abigail Sia ’15, Contributing Writer
O
n Saturday, September 14, the 87th Miss America pageant crowned its newest winner: Nina Davuluri of Syracuse, New York. Davuluri, who nicknamed herself “Miss Diversity” early in the pageant circuit, became the first Indian-American woman ever to be crowned Miss America. Unfortunately, what should have been remembered as a momentous, historic occasion will forever be tarnished by the outburst of racism that followed her victory. Viewers took to Twitter to express their disapproval and tweeted hateful statements such as “Miss America? You mean Miss 7-11.” Some others even went as far as to tweet “And the Arab wins Miss America. Classic” and “Miss America is a terrorist. Whatever. It’s fine.” Let’s take a look at Davuluri’s background: she is the daughter of immigrants, was a highly accomplished student at the University of Michigan who paid for part of her schooling through beauty pageant scholarships, and even struggled with obesity and bulimia in her college years. She is now an aspiring doctor. This could describe any other modern American woman, right down to the difficulty of paying for a college education and struggles with weight and body image. Instead, many angry viewers only saw a dark-skinned, Indian girl crowned as the ideal American woman. The ensuing furor has served to highlight the racism still present in the United States today. The latest US Census predicted that whites will no longer be in the majority by 2043. Unfortunately, despite this rapidly changing demographic profile, racism and racial tensions are still very prevalent and visible in our society. This claim should not be shocking to any of us, especially after the death of Trayvon Martin in February 2012. Following Trayvon’s death, the country exploded in an outpouring of sympathy for both Martin and George Zimmerman. For months, the airwaves and media outlets were flooded with discussions of racism and how far the United States still had to go before it could be considered a truly equal nation. Then, just as suddenly as it began, the discussions stopped. Racism and racial tension were
no longer the topics du jour. The world kept turning and events kept happening, and the media appropriately switched its focus and found new things to cover. Yet how can we expect to make progress if racism is not a constant topic of national conversation? Every incident that reminds us of the racial tension still present in our country is analyzed and dissected, but only for a short while. Then racial tension fades into the background, only to resurface with the next controversy. Racism was a hot topic during the “birther” issue, when conservatives demanded to see President Obama’s birth certificate in order to verify that he is indeed a naturalborn American citizen. It was again omnipresent after Trayvon Martin’s death and George Zimmerman’s trial. Afterwards, it faded from the national spotlight. Additionally, racial debates often thoroughly cover the issue of white-black racial tension but ignore other ethnic groups. What about the South Asians? The Arabs? These two distinct minorities are often lumped together out of either ignorance or racism and, due to the enduring legacy of 9/11, are equated with radical Islamic terrorists. South Asians and Arabs – along with East Asians and Latinos – are still assimilating into American culture. They are often still seen as outsiders in a country that is supposed to be proud of its diverse roots. If we are to move forward as a nation and really leave our racist past behind, racism and racial tensions must always be on the national consciousness. It constantly needs to be part of national conversation, as ubiquitous as rising gas prices and the ever-present frustration with Congress. We must also always consider other minorities who are still trying to establish themselves as Americans deserving of the label. Racism is not a topic that any American likes to talk about, and no one wants to be labeled as a racist. We don’t want to see ourselves as the racist society that we are. But coming to terms with our lingering racism will help us confront it, overcome it, and emerge as a stronger, better, more equal America than before. PP
6
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
“LEARNING THE LESSONS OF IRAQ:” WHY BRITAIN WILL NOT INTERVENE MILITARILY IN SYRIA by Rebecca Grenham ’16, Advertising and Publicity Co-Chair
I
n the midst of the British parliamentary debate over whether or not to intervene in Syria, leader of the Labour Party Ed Miliband said: “Learn the lessons of Iraq.” Shortly after, Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, only days after Prime Minister David Cameron spoke in favor of such action. Miliband’s statement acknowledged the similar attitudes towards Syria and Iraq, a war that is far from forgotten by the British people. The effects of the Iraq War in Britain are signs of larger tensions in British foreign policy, and the vote against military intervention in Syria is a reflection of the “lessons learned” from Iraq. In 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s agreement to back President George W. Bush in the invasion of Iraq fell into a long legacy of Anglo-American alliances. Since the end of WWII, the United States has been Britain’s closest and most powerful ally, and Britain has often backed American foreign policy initiatives. The one striking exception has been the Suez Crisis in 1956 when Britain, France, and Israel attacked Egypt without the support of the United States or the international community. The crisis proved to be such a diplomatic disaster that Britain retreated from the international scene, realizing that its foreign policy goals were best served by strengthening its relationship with the United States. Ever since the Suez Crisis, British politicians have been quick to support American policies, knowing that a large source of Britain’s international power is in its alliance with the United States. The decision to invade Iraq, however, was not supported by the British people, and led to numerous protests and the eventual resignation of Prime Minister Blair. The British people made their opinion on Iraq clear in February 2003, when thousands of protesters flooded into central London to demonstrate against the invasion. Despite this and other mass protests, Parliament in the following month approved a military invasion of Iraq. Britons afterward became critical of Blair’s government and his unnerving support for George W. Bush. In 2009, Britain began withdrawing its soldiers from Iraq, and by 2011, all British forces had vacated the region. In
addition, Prime Minister Blair stepped down in 2007, largely due to criticisms over Iraq. Popular opinion prevailed, though only after 179 British deaths. Popular opinion on Iraq has continued to shape British politics since the withdrawal. In 2009, Sir John Chilcot began a formal inquiry into the Iraq war, calling on Blair to explain his reasoning for supporting the invasion. Blair claimed that he would have invaded Iraq without American support - a statement that has been met with much skepticism. Iraq has proven to be so unpopular that, not surprisingly, British politicians even today are wary of declaring military action for similar reasons. Britain today is “learning the lessons of Iraq,” or, how to balance its foreign policy interests (namely, its alliance with the United States) with the will of the British people. The British public did not believe in the reasons cited for the Iraq invasion, and they felt that they were fighting an American war rather than a British war. More importantly, they felt that their government was neglecting their will in favor of foreign policy interests. Parliament’s decision to refrain from military action in Syria while approving financial aid reflects these tensions. Britain’s distant involvement in Syria shows how the nation has learned to manage its foreign and domestic interests. In her autobiography, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher claimed that one of the many lessons from the Suez Crisis in 1956 was that “British foreign policy could no longer be pursued without ensuring for it the support of the United States.” British politicians since the collapse of the empire have seemed to follow this thoroughly to the point of supporting almost all American foreign policy initiatives. However, as Iraq shows, if initiatives are too unpopular, they ultimately end up harming the British people and its politicians. Though the UN’s decision on Friday to revoke chemical weapons makes military intervention by any country less likely, Britain has made its position on Syria clear. By “learning the lessons of Iraq,” Britain is learning to distinguish its international interests from the interests of its own people. PP
7
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
GERMANY TRUSTS MERKEL YET AGAIN, BUT FOR WHAT? by Dylan Etzel ’17, Contributing Writer
O
n Sunday September 22nd, Angela Merkel was elected chancellor of Germany for a third term. Merkel’s political party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), received 41.5% of votes, failing to earn an absolute majority in Germany’s lower house of Parliament, the Bundestag. Her party’s strongest rival, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, produced a meek showing with only 25.7% of the vote. The other two parties that won seats were the Left Party, with 8.6%, and the Green Party, with 8.4%. Parties only earn seats in Parliament by receiving a minimum of 5% of the popular vote. This restriction disqualified the Free Democratic Party (FDP), an ally of Merkel’s CDU, from receiving official parliamentary representation.
tax increases have been beneficial to Europe, but they will not be able to coexist with unemployment relief and welfare reform. Furthermore, Merkel is a strong opponent of gay marriage and, should she concede on the issue, could face outrage within the CDU due to its Christian affiliations. In order for an alliance to succeed, Merkel must compromise with the SPD in some way, shape, or form. It is worth noting that Merkel won the reelection largely based on her handling of the EU’s economy - not because of her positions on social issues. The government’s lack of responsiveness to the public has been widely criticized and Merkel could find an opportunity to alleviate this issue through working with the SPD.
German legislative politics, in contrast to American politics, revolves around multiple parties forming voting alliances within the Bundestag. The disqualification of the FDP necessitates that the CDU forge a new alliance in order to secure a majority in Parliament. Due to commonalities in their foreign policy platforms, the two most likely allies are the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party.
What I found most interesting was the emergence of the AFD (Alternative for Deutschland) Party. Although it failed to win legislative seats, having won only 4.7% of the vote, it was a wake-up call for Merkel that support for more alternative, isolationist policies is growing. The AFD’s platform was heavily based on an initiative to dissolve the Euro economic zone (while keeping the EU intact). Clearly, non-interventionism in Europe is a sentiment shared by many Germans and will be a noticeable force in politics going forward. Ultimately, Chancellor Merkel faces changing political landscapes on numerous fronts. It is important that the thrice elected leader demonstrate a willingness to work with opposing parties, consider the opinions of the German public, and be wary of reactionary undercurrents in German society. PP
Merkel has found herself at a crossroads as she privately negotiates with both parties. To date, a creation of a “grand coalition” with the SPD remains the likely possibility. Both parties have much to gain from an alliance. However, to make a partnership work, Merkel would have to make numerous concessions on minimum wage, welfare reform, education reform, unemployment relief, and perhaps marriage equality for homosexuals. In the words of Peer Steinbrück, the SPD’s defeated candidate for chancellor, “The ball is in Merkel’s court.” The central question revolves around which of these issues Merkel can afford to concede. Raising the minimum wage to 8.50 Euros is certainly possible; Merkel needs to address fears of future economic stagnancy at home after the recent period of growth. Although a majority of Germans believe that Merkel handled the European Union’s financial crisis well, she will likely face pressure to turn her focus onto continued success at home. In addition, Merkel’s spending cuts and
8
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
WESTERN MARYLAND, THE 51st STATE? DON’T LAUGH YET by Rachel Cohen ’14, Editor-in-Chief
S
cott Strzelczyk, a 49-year-old Carroll County resident, is leading a grassroots movement to secede from the state of Maryland. Dubbed “The Western Maryland Initiative,” individuals in the five western counties of Garret, Allegany, Washington, Frederick and Carroll, are working to rally political support for what is certain to be an unattainable goal. Demographically, the five counties are populated with more than 653,000 people, greater than both the populations of Vermont and Wyoming. And geographically, the western Maryland region is larger than both Rhode Island and Delaware. Consequently, Strzelczyk insists that his plan is not wholly unrealistic and that secession would not be from the Union itself, but from the “oppressive and abusive treatment from Annapolis.” Unsurprisingly, Western Maryland’s push for secession has been met largely with ridicule. One writer in The Baltimore Sun suggested that “a simpler solution for everyone involved” would be for the aggrieved to just move across the state line to West Virginia. Another Sun writer pointed out that western Maryland counties contain about 11 percent of the state’s population, yet account for only 10 percent of Maryland’s tax base and receive more than 13 percent of Maryland’s total unemployment benefits. It’s clear that secession would entail major, likely untenable, economic consequences. Across the country, several other secession movements have cropped up in upstate New York, the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, Northern California and various northern Colorado counties. The Western Maryland Initiative shares some characteristics with these other secession movements, but it is distinct in its primary grievance: gerrymandering, the process of deliberate redistricting in order to influence an election’s outcome. Gerrymandering is one of those terms we are taught in high school government class. Perhaps we shrug when we hear it today and say, “well yeah it’s bad, but everyone does it.” It’s certainly true both parties are guilty of redistricting. However, Maryland’s record is particularly disappointing. An independent geospatial analysis firm ranked Maryland as the most gerrymandered state in the entire country. Take a look at a map of the 2012 congressional
voting districts for yourself. There are reasons why The Washington Post described District 3 as resembling “blood spatter from a crime scene.” Federal law dictates that legislators use new Census data to redraw congressional districts every ten years. However, when the Maryland legislators proposed their newly drawn districts, Common Cause of Maryland, the League of Women Voters, civil rights groups, and a supermajority of the Montgomery County Council met them with outrage. In response, Republicans managed to place “Question 5,” a redistricting repeal referendum, on the 2012 ballot. But redistricting never stood a chance of eliciting the type of political attention that some of the other Maryland referendum items could, like marriage equality and the Dream Act. Ultimately redistricting passed with a pretty high margin, even though many on both sides agreed that it went too far. I sympathize with these alienated conservative voters. Particularly as liberals and Democrats rally against the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and as they band together to fight duplicitous voter identification laws, I find their silence on this matter suspicious at best. Gerrymandering is just another form of disenfranchisement. It’s a political maneuver to make some votes count more than others, and some to not count at all. If liberals are going to be up in arms about voter suppression legislation, (which we should be) then we should also be concerned and sympathetic to the deep frustrations voters feel in Western Maryland due to gerrymandering. Mocking these feelings is cruel and antidemocratic. Maryland redistricting should model states like Arizona that have created an Independent Redistricting Commission, responsible for drawing new district boundaries independently of their state legislature. Who knows how long Scott Strzelczyk’s campaign will last, though don’t expect to see a 51st state anytime soon. But in the meantime, at the very least, hold off with the snark. PP
9
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
GLORY AND DECLINE: A LOOK AT BRAZIL’S ECONOMY by Preston Ge ’17, Contributing Writer
T
he key to revitalizing Brazil’s flagging economy will require the Brazilian government to do the unthinkable: drastically reduce its own power.
Brazil’s rise has oftentimes been compared to that of China. From 1998 to 2012, Brazil’s gross domestic product (GDP), the primary measure of national economic output, increased by 167 percent while US GDP, in comparison, increased by 79 percent. High demand from foreign nations for Brazil’s raw materials, a huge influx of foreign investment, and heavy government investment made for a seemingly perfect formula: rapid and robust expansion. But by 2011-2012, Brazil’s economy inexplicably stalled. By 2012, GDP growth had plummeted to an anemic 0.9 percent while growth in 2013 is projected to remain below 4 percent. As it has done in the past, the Brazilian government is investing in infrastructural projects in an attempt to boost the economy. However, infrastructural projects fail to address the inherent weaknesses within Brazil’s economy. Decades of government intervention have spawned mountains of costly regulations that sap the competitiveness of Brazilian firms against foreign firms. Despite being the world’s seventh largest economy, Brazil ranked a distant 130th (out of 185) in the World Bank’s “ease of doing business” rankings. Just starting a business, in and of itself, is a journey. According to the World Bank, starting a business in the US takes just six days. Starting a business in Brazil, in contrast, requires at least four months and is nearly five times as costly in terms of income per capita than in the US. This exorbitant cost discourages countless potential entrepreneurs and prevents many innovative firms from ever coming into existence. Meanwhile, government corruption allows companies with the best political connections, rather than the most efficient ones, to receive an advantage in the regulatory process. Brazil could invest in infrastructure, but infrastructural development has had, at most, a supporting role in Brazil’s growth. Brazil’s early 2000s growth was mainly the product of high demand for Brazilian resources and foreign investment; when demand dropped and investment dried up following the 2008 recession, the government’s continuing investment could not prevent
Brazil’s economy from losing steam. However, one thing is clear: the benefit from government expenditure is more than canceled out by the costs of its regulations. Of course, other critical issues face Brazil’s economy: rampant inflation prevents the central bank from stimulating investment and Brazil’s domestic private investment rates remain far below the average for industrial nations. But if Brazil’s private sector is not freed from the clutter of government bureaucracy, Brazilian firms will continually be at a severe competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Regardless of the approach that the government takes, one point remains salient: Brazil is important. As a major emerging market, Brazil will increasingly draw the attention of businesses all around the world. Demand from Brazil’s rising middle class for highquality American and European goods will significantly contribute to the recovery from the 2008 recession. Moreover, the funds of Brazilian financiers will be instrumental for investing in the developing world. A growing Brazil will be a blessing for economic prosperity in both developing and developed nations. However, Brazil’s rise comes at the price of declining American influence. Its natural resources will provide domestic industry with a major advantage. American firms, already facing stiff competition from China and elsewhere, will increasingly have to contend with the clout of Brazilian businesses. American influence in South America will wane, as Brazil will be a closer and cheaper trading partner for South American nations. The days of American dominance in South America are nearly over, and the rise Brazil has been, and will continue to be, a major cause of this decline. The battle to revitalize Brazil’s economy is being fought now, but the repercussions of that battle will be felt in the future. The Brazil of tomorrow could immensely influence the industries of China, the US, and the EU, which rely on Brazilian resources. As the largest economy in South America, the Brazil of tomorrow could lead the continent. As one of the most quickly developing economies, Brazil could potentially spearhead world economic growth. But the Brazil of today stands at a crossroads, and it must decide which path to take. PP
10
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
DON’T ASK ME TO COMPRIMISE by Akshai Bhatnagar ’14, Staff Writer
F
or Democrats, 2013 has been a rough year . After a convincing victory in last year’s election, the Democrats have been unable to accomplish much of anything these last ten months. The party has tried and failed to move legislation on guns, immigration, and the economy. President Obama’s popularity has slipped in the midst of NSA surveillance revelations and a generally negative assessment of his policy on chemical weapons in Syria. He was even forced to delay the rollout of his signature achievement: Obamacare. That’s why this week is so crucial. Republican legislators, upset by Democratic spending priorities and the health care law, will force a government shutdown if their demands are not met. Good. Maybe that miscalculation will cost them the House Majority next year. Even if it doesn’t, the Democrats have compromised enough already to let the Republican get what they want. As recently as 2008, the Republican party was coming up with creative, conservative solutions to the nation’s biggest problems. Governor Mitt Romney had just passed an effective health care reform law in Massachusetts based on conservative principles like an individual mandate. Senator John McCain had fought valiantly for immigration reform and a cap-and-trade bill to curb carbon emissions. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich even filmed a commercial with Nancy Pelosi arguing that the country needed to address climate change. And every major Republican candidate for that year supported an economic stimulus package. Fast-forward a year or two and the Republican party was a different place. Devastated by the liberal wave of 2008, they endeavored to block every single idea proposed by President Barack Obama. When he took up Republican positions—cap-and-trade, Romneycare, or economic stimulus—they rallied against him, reversed their own positions, and refused to cooperate. The Democratic response was to try and work with the Republicans. A whole year was wasted in trying to get a single Republican Senator to vote for health care. After the Republicans took back the House, the Democrats tried to negotiate a grand bargain, putting the government on a sound fiscal track for the first time since Bill Clinton left office. In return, the Republicans took the U.S. to the brink of the
first debt default in its history. Because, Barack Obama tried to raise taxes on richest 2% of Americans by roughly 3.5 percentage points. This week, Republican intransigence will again be on display. Refusing to pass a budget or continuing resolution without an Obamacare repeal, they are on the verge of shutting down the government. I really, really hope they will. There are some who say that both parties have sunk to new lows in their urge to win the next election. Perhaps. But there is only one party which got the health care law it came up with, and then decided to shut down the government because somebody else implemented it. There is only one party that defeats farm bills because they think America’s greatest liability is providing food to American children who can’t afford it. And there is only one party that had the audacity to vote against the most-watered down gun bill possible under the eyes of Sandy Hook parents. Away from Washington, it may seem as though the pettiness of Beltway politics cannot possibly correspond to reality. “Surely, those politicians can come up with a compromise? Isn’t that what we pay them to do?” This sentiment is as understandable as it is misguided. In the last thirty years, income inequality has skyrocketed, equality of opportunity has plummeted, and the world’s temperature has undeniably, indisputably, and unquestionably risen because of fossil-fuel emissions. The Democratic Party has tried desperately to appease Republicans, enacting tax cuts, cutting government spending (read: firing teachers and firefighters), and passing Republican laws without Republican support. After bargaining away so much for so little, the Democratic Party cannot afford to compromise anymore. In the next week, we as Americans will get a unique look at how politics in Washington really work. Republicans will try to close the government, threaten to default on the debt, and keep the economically-toxic sequester in place—and all because some guy they never liked tried to pass a Mitt Romney’s health care bill. I can’t wait to see them try to justify that to American voters next November. So go ahead Republicans, make my day. PP
11
Volume XIV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013
WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS
Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division
The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus 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’re 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, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well. While we publish the Politik Press 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