the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
2/24/14
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XV, Issue IV
Volume XV, Issue IV
1
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
the
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
POLITIK PRESS A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Sarallah Salehi Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
HEAD WRITER Julia Alle MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts POLICY DESK EDITOR Michael Bodner COPY EDITOR Peter Lee STAFF WRITERS Eliza Schultz Dylan Etzel Abigail Sia Adrian Carney Geordan Williams Chris Winer Akshai Bhatnagar Rosellen Grant Preston Ge
VOLUME XV, ISSUE IV FEBURARY 24th, 2014 2
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW: Nuclear Weapons ........................................
Page 4
Randy Bell ’13
THE POLICY DESK
Self-Defense for Whom? The Not-So-Curious Case of Marissa Alexander
..............
Page 5
Shereen Shafi ’15
THE MARYLAND DESK The Conversation About Hopkins Tuition is Long Overdue
............................... Page 7
Rachel Cohen ’14
SPECTERS OF SOCHI: RUSSIA’S DECLINE AS A GREAT POWER ... Page 9 Preston Ge ’17
A VENGEFUL FOLLY: THE LIFE OF THE AUMF .....................
Page 10
Corey Payne ’17
THE FUTURE OF THE US ECONOMY .................................... Page 11 Dylan Etzel ’17
A LEFTIST CONSCIENCE:
THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY VALUES ............................................ Page 12 Adam Roberts ’14
GROWING RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST .... Page 13 Geordan Williams ’14
3
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
WEEK IN REVIEW: Nuclear Weapons By Randy Bell ’13, Contributing Writer China to Step up Pressure on North Korean Nuclear Program After meeting with various Chinese senior officials last week, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the People’s Republic of China is determined to make serious efforts to halt North Korea’s infamous nuclear program. Kerry urged these officials and Chinese President Xi Jinping to “use every tool at their disposal” in pressuring the North Koreans to reconsider this program, which in the last year has made significant strides. After multiple launch tests last spring, the North Koreans have increased their centrifuges and reactivated their Yongbyon plutonium reactor, which will allow North Korea to add two nuclear weapons to their small stockpile in the next two years. As a result, Chinese leaders have endorsed denuclearization and have threatened to take “additional steps” if North Korea does not agree to negotiations. Despite this stance, there remains disagreement between China and the U.S. on how to enforce denuclearization and concerns that China cares more about border stability than anything else.
Negotiators Remain Optimistic About Settlement on Iranian Nuclear Program Six of the world’s major powers, including five nuclear nations, sent delegates to negotiate a final settlement on the nature and limitations of Iran’s progressing nuclear program. Without laying out explicit demands, these delegates met with Iran to discuss clear-cut requests for the Islamic Republic, including capping uranium enrichment to low fissile levels, allowing U.N. inspectors to be more intrusive in examining nuclear equipment, and decommissioning uranium centrifuges. While Iranian negotiators stressed their priority of a release of economic sanctions against them, it was said that all parties were “committed to negotiating in good faith.” One diplomat even said that “the talks are going surprisingly well. There haven’t been any real problems so far.” The U.S. and Israel hope these talks will restrict the program enough to give them time to initiate an appropriate response should Iran choose to exercise a nuclear arsenal.
Iran Nuclear Talks Push Saudi Arabia Towards Nuclear Ambition As Iran’s nuclear program advances each year, concern has developed in the Middle East over the nation’s growing leverage in the region. While American allies in the Middle East have publicly endorsed ongoing negotiations with Iran, there remains silent trepidation over the shifting power balance that would occur should Iran have the nuclear fuel to develop a bomb. Wendy Sherman, a negotiator between the U.S. and Iran, says that President Obama’s talks with Iran have increased worry among nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that negotiations will end with Iran retaining the ability to enrich Uranium. According to David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, Saudi Arabia is now giving serious consideration to creating a deterrent of their own. In 2012, they announced plans to build 16 commercial reactors by 2030; in 2013, they invested in the Pakistani nuclear program. Concessions made to Iran in diplomatic negotiations may push their initiative even further. PP
4
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
POLICY DESK ByShereen Shafi ’15, Contributing Writer
Self-Defense for Whom? The Not-So-Curious Case of Marissa Alexander
W
hile our country’s all-too-frequent mass shootings over the past few years have invigorated discussion about guns and self-defense, the perspective of those affirming Second Amendment rights has often been scrutinized. Some critique raced and classed fantasies about defending one’s home from specific kinds of invaders; others question what need those who dominate this discourse truly have to defend themselves against state oppression. The latter is particularly intriguing as it is of course those with the least societal power in this country—people of color, the poor—who are the most susceptible to violence, with more to fear from the state and from their fellow citizens. What does the right to arm oneself mean for a black man, so often stereotyped as a threat—like Jonathan Ferrell, shot dead by police after knocking on a woman’s door for help after a car crash, or Jordan Davis with his “loud music” and Trayvon Martin with his infamous hoodie and bag of skittles? And what does the freedom to buy a gun mean for a Muslim, the association of whom with destructive weaponry continues to this day, fueling hate crimes and the NYPD’s socially erosive mass surveillance of Muslim communities? Meanwhile, the same city’s stop-andfrisk program harasses and humiliates these very people while groping them for weapons (; blacks and Latinos comprise 84% of stops although the NYPD’s own data reveals that whites have been twice as likely to carry drugs and guns). But there’s more. Have you heard of Marissa Alexander? Marissa is a mother of three who fired a single warning shot at a wall to defend herself from her husband’s lifethreatening abuse; after 12 minutes of jury deliberation she was found guilty of aggravated assault and sentenced to 20 years in prison due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Marissa caused her husband no injuries, and her husband has a well-documented record of domestic violence. Marissa tried to invoke Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law—the same law that helped George Zimmerman walk free after actually committing murder—but a pre-trial judge disallowed it.
In the words of Marissa herself: “If you do everything to get on the right side of the law, and it is a law that does not apply to you, where do you go from there?” It matters that Marissa Alexander is a black woman; her case lies at the intersections of race and gender in the experience of the US criminal justice system. Stand Your Ground laws yield greater racial disparities than the justice system as a whole already does regarding whose killings are found justified. Furthermore, 85-90% of all incarcerated women in the US have a history of being victims of domestic and sexual violence. Prospects are worse for black women specifically: less than 17% of black female survivors of sexual assault will call the police, fearing they’ll be further victimized by cops or courts; black women are murdered by men at a rate 2.5 times higher than white women; and black women are imprisoned at a rate almost three times that of white women. Looking beyond statistics, Marissa’s case is not an anomaly. A quick list of other women of color in America who have been arrested for defending themselves: Lena Baker, Inez Garcia, Joan Little, Dessie Woods, Yvonne Wanrow, Patreese Johnson and six friends she was with when attacked, Sara Kruzan and Centoya Brown—both sex workers who killed their pimps—and Jewelyes Gutierrez and CeCe McDonald, who as trans women were already far more susceptible to fatal violence. But when American society seems to embrace the right to self-defense, how can this be? Kerry McLean of the National Lawyers Guild argues that although sexism is certainly relevant in Marissa’s case, “it would be irresponsible to ignore the role that race has played. I do not believe that Marissa would be treated so harshly if she were not black. It is as if the basic concept of self-defense doesn’t apply to her. Marissa was victimized by [her husband] and then again by the criminal justice system… Marissa’s case and many others demonstrate how black women and other marginalized groups are likely to be blamed when they defend
5
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
reminds us, “there was a time in this country when it was presumed that black women could not be raped. The idea was that they were naturally promiscuous and that their bodies were inviolate… This idea has carried over, I think, to the concept of ‘self-defense’ as applied to women of color. If black women’s bodies can always be violated and if black women are easily killable, then the notion of self-defense can never apply. Black women do not have a ‘self’ worth defending.” To understand what’s happened here, we must move beyond any abstract framework of rights and critically examine how such systems are raced, gendered, and classed. Many of Marissa’s supporters have asked: where is the National Rifle Association to proudly declare this case—as they so often do—a perfect example of why Americans should own guns? Marissa’s gun was legally registered. What greater illustration can there be for the right to bear arms in self-defense than a woman who may only be alive because she was a gun owner—who didn’t even take another’s life? If they are indifferent to this matter, then what exactly are they arguing for? Additionally, Marissa’s case has been neglected by both mainstream feminist organizations and civil rights organizations—though this is hardly surprising given the historical marginalization of women of color within feminism and anti-racism efforts. Also, these movements’ dominant forms have liberal inclinations, and the push for greater gun regulation is generally associated with political liberals and Democrats. However, liberals and NRA-supporting conservatives alike must seriously reconsider the way they understand and make arguments about gun rights. During the #31forMarissa letter-writing campaign launched during Domestic Violence Month last October, Mychal Denzal Smith wrote, “I hate guns. All of them…I hate the gun that shot a college classmate of mine at a party…I hate police guns…I hate the gun that killed Trayvon Martin…I hate the gun that killed my big cousin Demetri…I hate the gun you fired that landed you in jail. But I thank God you had it.” Smith continues, “We failed you, Marissa. We fail women like you every day. You wouldn’t have needed that gun if a man never put his hands on you, or the state believed your life was worth protecting…I hate guns, but more than that, I hate the necessity of guns. You wanted to feel safe. You deserve that.”
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
Thousands of people across the country called and wrote to Florida State Attorney Angela Corey—the same prosecutor from the Zimmerman and Michael Dunn trials—urging her to drop the charges against Marissa. Despite how the previous “guilty” verdict was overturned by an appeals court last September on the basis that Marissa was deprived of a fair trial, improperly burdened to prove she fired in self-defense—presumed guilty until proving herself innocent—Corey still decided to prosecute with a re-trial. Marissa remained in prison until November 27, 2013, when she was released on bond, for which she has to pay $500 every other week; she is now under house arrest, tracked by an ankle monitor costing another $105 per week. Her new trial is scheduled to begin on July 28, 2014. “Ms. Alexander has been victimized twice—once by her abusive ex-husband and again by the state of Florida, which has stolen nearly three years from her life for an act of self-defense that injured no one,” said the Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign in a statement to the press. This past February 10th was the third anniversary of Marissa’s incarceration and was accompanied by a “week of action” by the Campaign to raise support for this case and awareness about violence against women (for more information or to donate to Marissa’s legal fund, visit freemarissanow.org). As inspired as I am by this ongoing collective action, outside of this alliance the issue is still utterly neglected. In a country that claims to cherish self-defense and equality for women and people of color, such indifference is shameful and revealing. However, the right direction is clear: we must challenge these systems that devalue black and brown lives and reaffirm that women like Marissa do have selves worth defending. PP
6
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
MARYLAND DESK By Rachel Cohen ’14, Editor-in-Chief
J
The Conversation About Hopkins Tuition is Long Overdue
ohns Hopkins undergraduate tuition has risen from $37,700 in the 2008-2009 academic year to $45,470 in 2013-2014. This steep increase is one that continues to grow, virtually unquestioned by the student body, and with no end in sight.
Hopkins has defended the rising price, saying that tuition increased each year at only an average annual rate of 3.8%, compared to an average annual rate of 5.6% in the five years prior. But still, it’s well worth asking, what is this money for? This past month, the Delta Costa Project, a nonprofit nonpartisan social-science organization came out with a new report on costs in higher education. The report, “Labor Intensive of Labor Expensive: Changing Staffing and Compensation Patterns in Higher Education”, concluded that between 2000-2012, expansion in wages and salaries in higher education came not from instruction or academic support but from student services, including athletics, admissions, psychological counseling and career services. As The Chronicle of Higher Education puts it, “just as a cable company bundles channels together and makes you pay for them all, whether or not you watch them, colleges have bundled counseling, athletics, campus activities, and other services with the instructional side to justify charging more.” Hopkins and other universities have rationalized their expansion of student services by pointing to external regulations as well as pressure from students, parents and policymakers. Indeed issues like sexual assault and campus mental health have received substantial news coverage recently. And there are some new positions, like the Director of LGBTQ life on campus, which were enthusiastically met with widespread approval. However, there is more to the story. JHU Political Science professor, Ben Ginsberg, has written a book entitled “The Fall of the Faculty” which delves into what he observes as severe bureaucratic bloat in higher education. He sees our nation’s burgeoning administrative sector driving up the cost of education with little verifiable value in return. He contends that the growth of the administration has resulted in a shift of power away from the faculty. “In the old days, if the President of the University lost the faith of the faculty he couldn’t do his job,” said Ginsberg in an interview. “Now he circumvents that and the president has become relatively autonomous. It’s presidential imperialism.”
As Ginsberg argues in The Washington Monthly, “Universities are now filled with armies of functionaries—vice presidents, associate vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, provosts, associate provosts, vice provosts, assistant provosts, deans, deanlets, and deanlings, all of whom command staffers and assistants—who, more and more, direct the operations of every school.” We go to a private research university, so the rising costs of our education carry different political significance than that of state institutions, which are also seeing increases in price. And yet, it’s a mistake to think that somehow negates the difficult impact of these costs. Notably, the financial aid budget has increased under President Daniels’ administration, with grant aid for Homewood undergraduates increasing from $50 million in 2008-09 to just under $75 million in 2013-14. According to Director of Media Relations, Tracey Reeves, more than 40% of Homewood undergraduates receive assistance to offset the cost of attending Johns Hopkins. Nevertheless, while expanding the amount of assistance is surely good, with an ever-increasing cost of attendance, at some point it just becomes impossible for many students who might have otherwise been able to attend. Then at that point, our students, faculty and administrators have to ask themselves if the administrative growth and the expansion of student services is worth it at the expense of making the cost of attendance too expensive for many otherwise qualified students to afford. Perhaps there could be alternative models for degree seeking students, for those who want to come and get a Johns Hopkins education but do not want or cannot afford to pay for the sectors of the University that they will never plan to utilize, like student activities, Greek life and athletics. Or perhaps the status quo, with hopes that financial aid can adequately meliorate the burden, is the best solution given the difficulties of implementing any alternative system. There aren’t easy answers to these questions. The point is, however, that our school has never really had the opportunity to openly discuss and debate these issues and explore the larger consequences of these growing economic trends. This must change; none of these choices are, or should be mistaken as, inevitable.
7
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
SPECTERS OF SOCHI: RUSSIA’S DECLINE AS A GREAT POWER by Preston Ge ’17, Staff Writer
E
ver since winning the bid to host the 2014 Winter Olympics back in 2007, the Sochi Olympics were meant to be Russia’s – and, more importantly, Putin’s – moment in the limelight. The race to win the bid was close, with Sochi winning by four votes, and that only made the celebration all the more jubilant, with brilliant fireworks illuminating exuberant crowds who reveled in their success all night. In fact, 2007 proved to be an excellent year for Russia: GDP grew 8.5 percent, political dissent died down, and the Chechen rebellion seemed contained. Sochi was to be the perfect stage for Putin to demonstrate Russia’s ascendancy. As he declared to the IOC, “Sochi is going to become a new world-class resort for the new Russia.” But seven years and 51 billion dollars later, Sochi has become a world-class headache for Putin. The cost exceeds that of all past Winter Olympics combined. And what does Sochi have to show for it? Unfinished hotel rooms, shells of incomplete shopping malls, unpaved roads and building floors, and undrinkable tap water. Rampant corruption and disastrous disorganization have transformed the Sochi Olympics from a triumphant display of Russian majesty into a spectacle of embarrassment. Unfortunately, the debacle in Sochi is far from an anomaly. Corruption, bribery, and nepotism are the norm in Russia. Payouts and protection from higherups are rewarded by blind loyalty from the rank and file. The psychology of the Russian government is one based on unquestioning subservience. However, this fealty is purchased at the expense of ingenuity. There is no room for disruptive new ideas or potentially tumultuous innovation in the Russian government. After all, why would the ruling class allow the rise of anyone who could challenge them? As a result, the incompetence of Russian governance is not just encouraged; it is institutionalized and perpetuated. Sochi is just another sad reminder of this fact. Russia is no longer a superpower. Its economy is plagued with low productivity, an aging workforce, and dependency on oil and natural gas exports. Putin’s
most recent yearly address to the Russian Federal Assembly, with its usual patriotic rhetoric and shallow platitudes, paints a picture of a troubled nation: seething “interethnic tension,” authorities “constantly shaken by corruption scandals,” lags in medical research, technological backwardness, among many others. The Russian military is enormous, but sadly antiquated. Human rights have sunk to a new low, with recent laws suffocating NGOs, extravagant distortions of the law against political opponents, and a new and growing defiance of the European Court of Human Rights. These are not signs of a strong, confident government, but rather of a weak, insecure one that seems to believe that increasingly authoritarian and incompetent rule is an adequate substitute for capable governance. But perhaps most revealing of Russia’s decline is its foreign policy. There have been recent victories: the sheltering of Edward Snowden, the deal on Syrian chemical weapons, and Ukraine’s rejection of association with the EU. But what has Russia gained out of this? Edward Snowden is just one man whose capture would not undo any of the damage he has caused, and Syria is a war-torn nation whose government is reviled by much of the world. And even Putin’s success in retaining Ukraine in Russia’s sphere of influence led to the resignation of the Ukrainian government and, even now, is pushing Ukraine closer and closer to civil war. If Ukrainian President Yanukovych survives, he will surely be wary of making any more blatantly pro-Russia moves. These are mere tactical victories, with no coherent, long-term strategic goal. In the modern world, the crude, hamfisted style of diplomacy practiced by Russia will yield few meaningful long-term dividends. These traits do not reflect a newborn Russia rising from the ashes of the former Soviet Union, but rather show a former superpower grasping at the last vestiges of its former glory. We should never, ever underestimate Russia, but there is little indication that the government has the willpower, or the ability, to reform itself into something better. Russia might be floundering in its institutional problems, but at least the beachgoers at Sochi will have a nice ski resort to visit in the future. PP
8
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
A VENGEFUL FOLLY: THE LIFE OF THE AUMF by Corey Payne ’17, Contributing Writer
T
he response by the American government following the attacks on September 11, 2001 was swift and decisive. Following historical precedent, the attacks sparked war. But the war that began in 2001 was like no other.
passed the AUMF, giving our presidents the authority to take dangerous steps in the name of national security.
Congress, working with the White House counsel, quickly wrote and enacted the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The only legal clause of this document has since been used to invade countries, remove constitutional rights, and wage an unwinnable war.
While there have been many attempts to call for the end of these controversial programs, for the perceivable future, the AUMF remains. Our government, once given power, will not easily relinquish it. Every time something controversial is discovered, our executive branch cries out that it is working fully within the scope of the law. Unfortunately, this is true. The debate is not over if these actions are legal, but if they should be.
“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
The NSA surveillance program, the foreign drone strikes, the indefinite detention (and torture) of suspected terrorists, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan all began with those words. And no one in Washington denies that rights are being infringed upon and lives are being taken. Some may proclaim it necessary in the name of national security, but even the staunchest affirmers of these programs do not argue that rights are not being revoked.
In the wake of such a horrible act of terror, fear and vengeance plagued the country. Only one member of either house of Congress voted against the AUMF, arguing that this document was giving George Bush amounts of authority that could not be controlled.
These representatives were not looking out for their constituents during those fall meetings. Their fear and vengeance took over; they allowed our rights to be taken away because of it.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee had enough foresight to realize that the discussions in the backrooms of Washington, DC in September 2001 would have life and death impacts that circled the world. Like Lee, no member of Congress knew where the AUMF would lead. Our elected representatives acted out of passion, leaving their judgment behind and letting emotion take over. Many of them would eventually come out against “Bush’s Wars”, advocate for the end of the CIA’s detainee program, and crusade against unwarranted executions through drone strikes. Despite their ensuing opposition, our government planted a seed that has grown out of control. The AUMF was used as the primary justification for the uncontrollable NSA surveillance program. What many don’t understand is that Congress almost unanimously
Yet now they fight for us. They fight against the administration. They fight for our liberties—but only because public opinion has so drastically changed that they don’t have another option. When politics is pushed aside, most of them would surely have as few problems with AUMF now as they did in 2001. They are only fighting for themselves. We are the only ones who can give this power back to the people. But we are doing nothing. The government works for us. It is not only our prerogative, but it is our duty to speak out against a broken policy. If our elected leaders will not change it, then we much change them. If the system remains broken, we must stand together to tell our government that we aren’t going to take these egregious violations. Write; vote; protest—do something. PP
9
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
THE FUTURE OF THE US ECONOMY by Dylan Etzel ’17, Staff Writer
E
arlier last week, Federal Reserve Central Bank Chair Janet Yellen announced another $10 billion per month cut to the government’s aggressive bond-purchasing policy, known as quantitative easing, that has been perceived as the cause of the blistering economic growth that the Dow Jones and S&P 500 have experienced since the beginning of the year. According to Yellen, only a significant downturn would cause the stimulus cuts to be halted. Analysts and Fed chairs have stuck by their assertions that further purchasing would not be effective. In the background, it is worth noting that the beginning of February marked the biggest Dow Jones Industrial Average drop since it seemed possible the government would default on its loans in October. No one is questioning that it is time to cut back on stimulus. But shouldn’t we ask why, exactly? Yellen recently explained away any downturn as a result of the weather, yet we have already bounced back from the low levels of early February amid stimulus cuts. What is the limit to how far we can stimulate the economy? Already disapproving of such massive a recovery package, Republicans in Congress favored budget sequestration, forcing government agencies to make as many cuts as possible. Notable economists and Op-Ed writers spoke out against them and cited austerity in Europe as a useful set of data that proves that states cannot cut their way to a stable economy. If this is so, why did we not pursue more aggressive stimulus in the first place? Can we still? In an opinion piece published Thursday, Paul Krugman described the “Tragedy of Stimulus,” in which he noted with regret just how much additional stimulus could have rebuilt the American economy. On Wednesday, Governor Martin O’Malley visited our school and delivered a speech. In it, he centralized on the idea of only cutting when increasing spending as well. He pointed to the example, as Krugman did, that austerity has set by producing stagnation and not doing what it was predicted to do. What both fell short of asking is why we’re cutting easing now. Opinions on innovation may provide an outlook on the answer.
Many economists believe, with historical evidence, that innovation can be graphed as a plateau followed by a surging upward slope that plateaus again. With the advent of the Internet, dotcom companies, and the boom of the services industry behind us, are we in a plateau now? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Economists’ predictions for the invention of 3D printing vary widely. What could companies do with a commercially economical printer of materials? Possibilities seem endless. In the energy sector, the growing fear of the wrong side of Hubbert’s Peak has produced arguably the biggest innovative period of alternative energy innovation ever. The stimulus provided has accounted for improvements in wind, solar, and nuclear power. Just recently, scientists announced that discounting the energy used in heating, the input into a nuclear fusion experimental device was exceeded by the output. No, the energy crisis was not instantaneously solved, but the future of nuclear energy, whether in fusion or fission, brightened. The current state of the United States economy is this: the end of the recession is upon us. What sustainable structure we leave in its wake is up to us. Innovation will be necessary to escape the looming storm that is a resource crisis. Other weighty concerns, such as climate change, restrict the ease at which we shape the economy. The government has proven its role and effectiveness in stimulating the economy in times of dire need, but with entitlement spending positioned to either need reform or wreak havoc on the economy, there will need to be more than steady growth that will stymie over time. We live in a time of great uncertainty, yes. No one knew for sure at the onset whether stimulus or austerity would function better. Now that we know, we can adjust accordingly. What we should be wondering now is if we’re stable enough to slam on the breaks. PP
10
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
A LEFTIST CONSCIENCE: THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY VALUES by Adam Roberts ’14, Maryland Politics Editor
F
ew would associate the Democratic Party with family values. In spite of all the problems the Republican Party has had over the past decade, it has still maintained its monopoly over “values voters”. Republicans have been so successful because of their support for school prayer, “traditional” marriage, limits on birth control, and limits on abortion. Yet, it is not just the stances that Republicans have taken on the issues, but their aggressiveness in promoting them, which has put Democrats on the defensive. Unable or unwilling to contest other family values issues, the Democrats have essentially given up on values voters. As both a values voter and a Democrat, I recognize the emerging political landscape as the perfect opportunity for Democrats to make inroads among values voters. The heavy dose of libertarianism that has infused itself within the Republican base, especially among Tea Party voters, is strongly contrary to the ideology of values voters. Whereas libertarians see the government as a malicious entity that ought to remain totally aloof from the private lives of citizens, values voters desire a government that actively promotes morality. In this sense, values voters and Democrats both share a common vision of a big government that dictates ethical standards. Values voters are being left by the Republican Party, which offers the Democrats a chance to at least contest them on a few issues. The first and most surprising is gay marriage. So far, Democrats have promoted gay marriage as a civil rights issue, which it certainly is. As we saw with Proposition 8 in California, which banned gay marriage, this civil rights argument failed to attract values voters. Evangelical blacks, the only value voters who support Democrats, turned out in droves to vote for Prop 8, even as Democrats said it was an infringement on civil rights. If Democrats are to keep their few values voters and add new ones, they need to argue gay marriage as a matter of family values. With divorce rates high in this country, Democrats should argue that gay marriage is a defense of marriage. After all, families spring from healthy marriages, and families are the basis of society. As values voters will attest, it is the duty of the government to
ensure that more people are married for the good of society. Related to the defense of marriage is the low birth rate in this country. Religious scripture and tradition has mandated large families as essential to values voters. For Democrats, a low birth rate threatens the welfare state. Young working people provide the taxes necessary for most welfare programs to survive. Our low birth rate threatens us with the same problems that have befallen East Asia and will soon hit Europe, that extensive welfare states cannot be effectively supported by aging populations. Values voters and Democrats should unite on this issue to push through legislation that promotes childbirth, and increase national awareness about the importance of having more children. Finally, Democrats and value voters share a common concern about organized religion. It is a myth that Democrats are anti-religious. They are more than willing to embrace religious institutions that support their values, such as Pope Francis’ rebranded Catholic Church. Meanwhile, the libertarianism that has infected the Republican Party has led to a distrust of all institutions, including organized religion. After decades of rapprochement with Catholic voters, Republican political figures have fiercely come out against the Catholic Church under Pope Francis. They not only dislike the Pope, but fear the Church as an institution. The growing ranks of radically small government Republicans dislike any institution, whether it be church or state, out of concern that any institution will seek to impose opinions on individuals. What I argue that Democrats should do, is create a constituency of leftist value voters. These voters will not be socially conservative according to the terminology of today. Rather, they will be socially conservative because of their defense of family and faith against a Republican Party that is increasingly skeptical of anything beyond the individual, and unwilling to use the powers of government to combat the problems that threaten our social cohesion. PP
11
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
GROWING RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST by Geordan Williams ’14, Staff Writer
F
ield Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, commander of the Egyptian military and current de facto ruler of Egypt, traveled to Moscow last Wednesday to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding a potential two billion dollar arms deal. Sisi approached Putin about the deal to compensate for lost American aid, which was canceled after Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi was ousted from office last summer. This move is reminiscent of the 1955 SovietEgyptian arms deal when then Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser sought to play the Soviet Union and the United States against each other to secure aid and establish Egypt as a burgeoning regional powerhouse. Putin publicly stated his support for Sisi in the next presidential election, though the defense minister has yet to announce his bid for the presidency. This statement is indicative of a newly aggressive Russian foreign policy that has sought to advance regional aspirations through bold actions such as supporting the Assad regime in Syria. Initially, the Soviet Union did not attempt to expand its influence into the Middle East due to an already pervasive Western influence there. Moreover, most of the Arab Nationalist states that arose during the Cold War remained non-aligned, seeking to abstain from the proverbial chess game between the US and Soviet Union. Nasser was also a proponent of the non-alignment movement but when his desire to purchase arms from the U.S. was repeatedly refused, he purchased arms from the Soviets instead. Soon, several other states such as Syria, Iraq, Algeria, and Libya followed suit. These states were far from communist, but the U.S. refused to see any difference and so pushed these countries firmly into the Soviet camp and so Soviet influence spread to the Middle East, and has partially remained until the present day. Recently, Russia underneath President Putin has once again sought to expand its influence in the Middle East. Russia has been supplying arms to Syrian President Assad’s regime throughout the Syrian Civil War, and along with China, has used its permanent seat on the UN Security Council to veto any action against Assad’s regime. Last year, when President Obama was considering a strike against the Assad regime, Russia
urged Syria to destroy its chemical weapons and offered to act as a mediator, thus posing itself as the ultimate arbiter between Syria and the wider world. Russia is currently seeking to expand this influence to Egypt; by offering his support for Sisi’s bid for the Egyptian presidency, not only is Putin hoping to pressure Sisi into running, but he is also establishing Moscow’s approval as something to desired. Clearly, the Russia of today is not equivalent to the Soviet Union and this is not a zero-sum game. Still one must wonder why Russia is seeking to expand its influence in the Middle East and whether this has consequences for the United States. Unlike in the case of the Ukraine, this move cannot simply be explained as Putin seeking to expand Russian regional power. This has global implications and is an attempt to increase Russian soft power in the world at large. Although this is no longer a battle of ideologies, it would appear that Putin is still posing Russia as an alternative to U.S. hegemony and Western influence. During times of cooperation, such an alternative may not be detrimental to the United States, but could cause political deadlock in future crises in a volatile Middle East. It also has economic implications. Western scholarship and media has largely focused on the oil that the Middle East supplies to the rest of the world; however, an equally powerful influence, if not more so, has been competing arms industries. In this respect, a gain for the Russian arms industry is a loss for the American one. The chessboard, however, has been reset with Russia now acting as a supporter of unpopular regimes. Russian support of Assad and Sisi means that it will now face much of the fallout that the Cold War containment policy caused the U.S. Ultimately, this will impede growing Russian influence in the Middle East. Still, U.S. foreign policy should aim to limit Putin’s image as an international powerbroker in light of the dangers he poses as a rival on the international stage. PP
12
Volume XV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 24th, 2014
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 13