the
POLITIK PRESS
3/10/14
MARCH 10th, 2014
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XV, Issue VI
Volume XV, Issue VI
1
POLITIK PRESS VOLUME XV, ISSUE IV
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
the
MARCH 10th, 2014
MARCH 2nd, 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 COPY EDITOR Peter Lee MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts POLICY DESK EDITOR Michael Bodner STAFF WRITERS Eliza Schultz Dylan Etzel Abigail Sia Adrian Carney Geordan Williams Chris Winer Akshai Bhatnagar Rosellen Grant Preston Ge Corey Payne
FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David 2
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
INSIDE THIS ISSUE JOHNS HOPKINS’ LOST VISION:
INVESTIGATING GENDER INEQUITIES AMONG HOMEWOOD FACULTY
....
Page 4
Eliza Schultz ’15
COVE POINT:
.................
Page 6
THE DIVIDED STATES OF UKRAINE ......................................
Page 7
A DANGER TO BALTIMORE AND THE HOPKINS COMMUNITY Thalia Patrinos ’14
Dylan Etzel ’17
INSANE IN UKRAINE: ANALYZING PUTIN’S STRATEGY IN CRIMEA
......................................
Page 8
Peter Natov ’16
‘IT’S NOT ME, IT’S YOU’—TIME TO END THE CHRISTIANITY/ GOP MARRIAGE .................................................................... Page 9 Corey Payne ’17
THE RETURN OF ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVISM AND ‘WARREN DEMOCRATS’ ......................................................
Page 10
Adrian Carney ’14
THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT! ...............................................
Page 11
Valentin Weber ’14
3
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
JOHNS HOPKINS’ LOST VISION: INVESTIGATING GENDER INEQUITIES AMONG HOMEWOOD FACULTY by Eliza Schultz ’15, Staff Writer
T
welve years ago, in 2002, University President William Brody decided to take action against patent gender disparities at Johns Hopkins, mostly unabated since they were thoroughly documented in 1985. He and then-Provost Steven Knapp established a Committee on the Status of Women, tasked with investigating the obstacles between female employees of the University and senior academic, administrative, and executive positions, their root causes, and their proper means of rectification. In 2006, the Committee’s 38 members published Vision 2020, a 163-page report recommending gender parity in senior leadership positions by 2015 and in senior faculty positions by 2020. Today, as these dates loom closer, neither Brody nor Knapp works at Johns Hopkins. Among current students, there is virtually no knowledge of the Vision 2020 report. It is without question that, except for in a few academic departments, students are exposed to far more male faculty than female. And with only a brief mention of commitment to female leadership in Ten by Twenty, President Ronald Daniels’ initiative to improve specific aspects of the University by the end of the decade, it appears that the University has mostly lost sight of its Vision 2020. The institutional problems contributing to gender inequities at the University, Vision 2020 found, were wide in range and systemic. Regularly facing lower promotion rates than men, and, in some departments, receiving less in salaries and benefits, women were effectively barred from most leadership positions. The report also documented that due to the tacit, cultural emphasis on the “ideal worker model,” a reference to people willing to devote constant attention to work, those who required time for childcare and family felt marginalized by the University. Vision 2020 described the gender culture as “pernicious” and “subtly hostile,” and even found that about 22 percent of women at the University had endured sexual harassment. 14 percent of female faculty members had received “demeaning remarks based on gender.” Other documented female experiences included feelings of exclusion, isolation, and of being undervalued in the male-dominated institution.
So, where are we now? Of the eight academic divisions, male deans are in charge of six (female deans lead the School of Nursing and the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences). Male directors head the University’s remaining three divisions, including the Applied Physics Laboratory, the Peabody Institute, and Libraries and Museums. Within the President’s Cabinet, there is slightly more gender parity, with seven women out of total 17 staff members. Although not employees of the University, the gender makeup of the Board of Trustees is indicative of gender inequities across Johns Hopkins. Of the 44 members, 11 are female. It should be noted that, five years ago, before Daniels took office, 19 of the trustees were women. As reported in The Baltimore Sun, the most recent election resulted in the appointment of five new members, all men. While Krieger has seen some improvement toward gender parity, there is still a long way to go before the University can make any claims of equality. In an examination of faculty statistics between 2003 and 2012, the earliest and latest years for which data was available, 30.9 percent of professors on the tenure track were female in 2003; this figure rose to just 33.9 percent in 2012. Women comprised just under a quarter of tenured faculty in 2012, a small increase compared to 2003, when they accounted for 18 percent. The Whiting School of Engineering lags far behind Krieger in terms of gender equality. One exception to this rule is the tenure track, of which women comprised 38.9 percent in 2012, whereas they accounted for only 16.7 percent in 2003. Yet, to be clear, the percent of tenured female professors increased negligibly over that nine-year period, from 7.1 to 8.2. In absolute numbers, tenured female faculty rose from three in 2003 to no more than seven in 2012. And on the non-tenure track, the percent of women grew from 8.2 percent in 2003 to 24.6 in 2012. In other words, of Whiting’s 37 female professors in 2012, 16 of them were essentially ineligible for tenure. Both divisions have seen increases in the absolute number of full-time faculty members since Vision 2020 was
4
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Who are Female Krieger School of Arts & Sciences 100%
%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
33.9%
24.8%
37.7%
24.9%
33.3%
25.7%
37.3%
23.9%
34.6%
23.1%
36%
22.1%
38.9%
20.4%
36.4%
19.5%
18%
30.9%
18%
%
tenure-track faculty that are female
35.9%
tenured faculty that are female
2012
Whiting School of Engineereing 100%
%
2003
2004
2005
2006
commissioned. In Krieger, there were 50 more full-time women in 2012 than in 2003. Whiting saw a net increase of 24 women over the same period. However, comparable increases in full-time male faculty have accompanied both of these increases, undermining the overall gains in parity. Eight years before the recommended deadline for gender parity among senior faculty, there were still significant disparities in the gender breakdown of tenured and tenure-track professors. There is no system that pressures departments to hire or promote female faculty. These choices are made at the discretion of individual departments, which then submit their final nominee to the Academic Council, the body that oversees appointments and promotions. The departments also submit an Affirmative Action report stating the gender, race, and ethnicity of the person in question. However, these reports seldom play a role in the Academic Council’s final decision, according to Professor of History Mary Ryan, who sits on the Council.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
38.9%
8.2%
8%
43.3%
9.6%
32.1%
10.5%
28.1%
11%
23.3%
12.7%
17.1%
11.1%
15.4%
8.5%
11.4%
10.1%
16.7%
7.1%
%
tenure-track faculty that are female
43.3%
tenured faculty that are female
2012
In 2008, the Office of the Provost announced an incentive called the Mosaic Initiative to encourage departments to hire women and underrepresented minorities. Over the next five years, the University committed $5 million in matching funds for departments seeking to improve their diversity, whether through hiring or retaining faculty. The Initiative, which the University has touted as “extraordinarily successful,� resulted in over 20 appointments of female and underrepresented minority faculty across the institution, according to its website. Targeted opportunities, which allow departments to circumvent the normal recruiting process to appoint new faculty positions, have also been tactics for increasing academic gender diversity. However, Professor of History Judith Walkowitz has heard of instances where departments have at times used targeted opportunities to hire the preeminent male scholar in a given field rather than women or minorities, for whom the recruitment tactic was originally intended.
5
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
In the immediate wake of Vision 2020, a number of Krieger faculty members proposed a list of recommendations that they deemed both important and implementable, such as a mentorship network. They established their own standing Committee on the Status of Women, which continues to serve as a contact point between Krieger faculty and deans, in order to keep the latter informed on gender-related issues that arise among faculty. In response to the recommendation for a mentorship network, then-Dean of Faculty David Bell spearheaded a system that provides junior faculty with the opportunity to receive council from two senior faculty members, one of whom is from their same department. History of Science and Technology Professor Sharon Kingsland, who served for three years as Chair of the Krieger School Committee on the Status of Women, explained that this system helps to protect faculty members from some of the feelings of isolation that they might experience at the University. Recognizing lack of childcare as a key issue, Krieger’s Committee on the Status of Women supported a faculty-sponsored petition toward the effort of bringing a childcare facility to the Homewood campus. The petition, circulated in early 2013, garnered 257 signatures. As a result of these efforts, a childcare center is now due to open in late 2015. While this development is a promising step toward supporting faculty members with young families, the need for a childcare facility has been discussed for decades. A University report from 1994 identified the lack of childcare as a “pressing problem for many faculty and staff,” and a 1971 article in The News-Letter indicates that at least one female professor had been requesting that the University provide childcare services at that time. Forty years later, the University has finally moved forward with its plans for a facility.
MARCH 10th, 2014
Hostility toward female faculty is still very much a feature of Whiting, where there has not been the same surveillance of gender issues as in Krieger. One professor, who wished to remain anonymous, said in an interview that Vision 2020’s description of the gender culture as “pernicious” and “subtly hostile” resonated with her. She described the Whiting School’s environment as “toxic.” Another professor, however, said that she had not experienced any overt genderbased discrimination, but nonetheless described Whiting as a “boys’ club.” One female professor of engineering was optimistic about the appointment of T.E. Schlesinger, the new male dean of Whiting. She hears that he is “very aware” of gender issues, and believes that he will work to address them. However, he has not confirmed any such commitment in a formal statement. Still, it is indeed encouraging to hear that an incoming administrator might devote himself to examining Johns Hopkins’ gender problem. But for the University to change its gender culture that requires not just words or individual hires, but a systemic commitment to action – action that is long overdue. PP
Today, Krieger’s Committee on the Status of Women most commonly hears complaints related to the low number of female faculty, spousal hires, and parental leave policies. There have also been reports of genderbased harassment from faculty and graduate students, according to Professor of Biology Karen Beemon, who recently chaired the Committee.
6
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
MARYLAND DESK by Thalia Patrinos ’14, Contributing Writer
I
Cove Point: A Danger to Baltimore and the Hopkins Community
have organized letter-writing campaigns, I have brought Hopkins students to information sessions, and I have even skipped lecture to go to rallies downtown, all in the name of stopping Cove Point.
What is Cove Point and why should you care? Cove Point is a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility on the Chesapeake Bay in Southern Maryland. The export facility would replace the existing import facility, and would be used to process and ship natural gas to places as far away as Asia. The production and exportation of natural gas has recently increased in popularity, especially on the East Coast. This is because of advances in hydraulic fracturing technology (also known as “fracking”) that allow anyone with a permit to drill massive amounts of gas at a time. Although doing this would appear to be a way to make easy money, the gas industry is the only one that will profit from Cove Point, and society will suffer high externalities as a result. The process of extracting, processing and transporting LNG is extremely energy and water-intensive. Drilling for gas involves injecting a combination of highly pressurized water and toxic chemicals deep into the ground to fracture rock. Fracking requires 3 to 8 million gallons of water per well, and the chemicals can easily contaminate groundwater. To support the Cove Point export facility, Maryland will need to increase to current production of natural gas, which will also increase the likelihood that our waterways will be poisoned. Another consequence of the increase in local natural gas production will be increased competition in Maryland, which will drive up energy costs for domestic consumers. The Department of Energy commissioned an NERA Economic Consulting Analysis that reveals how the exportation of natural gas negatively affects every sector of the U.S. economy save for the gas industry.
However, the most important consequence of Cove Point will be the effect on our climate. Not only does the process of burning gas release greenhouse gas emissions that ultimately speeds the rate of climate change, but the construction of Cove Point, as well as all the drills and facilities to maintain it, only adds to the amount of dangerous emissions. As Hopkins students, we should be especially concerned about this. As average global temperatures continue to climb as a result of climate change, Arctic ice melts and increases the global sea level. This should make us particularly nervous, considering how close our University is to the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, the changing climate will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like Hurricane Katrina. We should be doing everything in our power to preserve our state from the dangers of climate change. The construction of Cove Point would put our state, our University, and our community at risk. We often feel disconnected from our environment in Baltimore—we do not have to worry about where our water and our food come from. We don’t see where or how our food is grown. We see our groceries in the store and don’t think twice about the water and other resources needed to put it there. The fresh water that is available to us in Baltimore, in this country, and in this world is all the fresh water we have. We cannot risk poisoning our water solely for the profits of gas companies. So what is Cove Point and why should you care? Cove Point is a danger to the Baltimore and Hopkins environment. As young members of this community, we should be doing our best to preserve the future for ourselves and our future generations. We should not sell out the health of our environment and each other for the temptation of an easy buck. If you agree, you should join me: write a letter, voice your opinion, and work together to stop Cove Point. PP
7
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
THE DIVIDED STATES OF UKRAINE by Dylan Etzel ’17, Staff Writer
E
arlier this week, President Obama announced that through executive order he would impose visa bans on specific, undisclosed Russians and Ukrainians as part of his response to the Civil War crisis occurring in Ukraine and Crimea. In addition, he issued an executive order that effectively allows him legality in initiating sanctions against people and entities that escalate tensions surrounding the situation. In this case, however, words have been stronger than actions. President Obama and the European Union leaders have expressed strong opinions regarding Russia’s “invasion” of Crimea, and Putin and the Kremlin have made equally legitimate political claims. So what exactly does the issue in Crimea have to with the United States? American Exceptionalism, self-righteousness, and Cold War sentiment all loom in the background of these heavy statements. American Exceptionalism, at its core, is the idea that since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States has been the world’s only superpower, and that with that distinction comes undeclared privileges. Simon Tisdall, a columnist of the Guardian, submitted an op-ed to CNN in which he opened by saying, “All the self-righteous huffing and puffing in Washington over Ukraine jars on European and especially Russian ears after the multiple U.S.-led invasions and interventions in other people’s countries of recent years.” This is formidably accurate. What this has to do with Exceptionalism is the idea that the United States can intervene in foreign affairs in ways that other countries cannot. This opinion has dominated in the White House for quite a long time for a simple reason: “self-righteous huffing and puffing” is expected unfairly by the American people and has ascended the political ladder. On the surface, it would appear that American interests, especially in pro-Russian Crimea, are relatively minimal. President Obama has labeled the Crimean crisis an extension of the overall issue of Ukraine’s future, in which he has, albeit self-righteously, taken an active diplomatic part, as he did in Syria. Two main differences remain: Russia did not mobilize in Syria, and Syria was not directly adjacent to Russia. In this case, it would seem as though the furthest the United States will go to assert its moral authority
would be the imposition of sanctions of individuals, and not bear its fangs toward Russia. Why were American fangs born so strongly in the first place? American theorists, including Hillary Clinton, have compared Russia’s actions to those Hitler took in the Sudetenland as a precursor to World War II. This is a shaky comparison. Though predicated on similar principles, Russia has no notions of Aryan identity, and Crimean asset holdings are of equal importance to Russia in the matter. Economics are key here. Conventional wisdom holds that the Cold War ended when the Soviet Union dissolved, but the same exact fears that gripped American and Soviet citizens forty years ago are still involved on both sides. The reality is that the Russian economy is now rooted in dealings with the European Union and the United States. Unfortunately, sanctions have not proven effective, as seen with Iran. Ideological concerns often take precedence over economic ones, and unlike Iran, Russia has considerable ability to levy its own significant sanctions. Both sides should be more honest in this matter. Putin wants Crimea, legal or not; Obama and the EU envision Ukraine as the edge of the Western world. West vs. East has never decreased in relevance. Although, Russia has a history of asserting the ability of sovereign states to self-determine at United Nations general assemblies, the Kremlin involved the military this time. Coerced or not, the Crimean parliament voted in favor of a referendum entailing secession from Ukraine. The government of Ukraine claims this is illegal, though making secession legal has never been any state’s policy decision. The United States should be, and probably is, willing to give up moral claims to support Ukraine’s right to controlling Crimea in return for Russia backing off from intervening with the rest of Ukraine. This would be enough for Washington. Before tempers flare further, this solution should be acknowledged, albeit cynically, as a win-win in the endgame. PP
8
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
INSANE IN UKRAINE: ANALYZING PUTIN’S STRATEGY IN CRIMEA by Peter Natov ’16, Contributing Writer
I
t’s difficult to determine what Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes and expects to achieve from Russia’s current occupation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. Putin believes the dissolution of the Soviet Union was 20th century’s “greatest geopolitical catastrophe.” He certainly understands that annexing Crimea will obviously not restore the power and influence Moscow possessed during the height of the Soviet Union. Putin does not, however, realize that Russia’s use of military force and possible annexation of Crimea may bring Russia another geopolitical catastrophe. The possible economic sanctions and political punishments Russia may face from the international community because of its invasion and occupation of Crimea are many. The fact that Putin is willing to risk so much reveals the sheer desperation behind his actions in Crimea. Putin is utterly desperate to prevent Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe from waning any further than it has in the past 20 years. Many ethnic Russians in Crimea may embrace annexation by Russia. Putin’s reputation at home may improve as well. But Russia has little to nothing to gain from formally annexing a part of Ukraine in which the majority of its inhabitants are ethnically Russian. Already very supportive of Russia, these people will continue to feel strong historical and cultural ties to Russia for decades to come. It’s in Russia’s interest to ensure that Crimea, as well as the eastern and southeastern regions of Ukraine, remains a part of Ukraine. The people of these regions, who are largely supportive of Russia and who were important for the election of the pro-Russian and recently-ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, would thus continue to assert their desire for Ukraine to develop stronger ties to Russia. It’s also in Russia’s interest to maintain the divisions among the Ukrainian population regarding Ukraine’s relationship with the European Union and Russia. The people of western Ukraine are by and large eager for the Ukrainian government to establish greater economic and political ties with the EU. The people in eastern and
southern Ukraine, however, would rather see a closer economic relationship to Russia develop. A possible partition of Ukraine into two new states stemming from the ongoing political turmoil in Kiev would bring about only a further decline of Russian influence in Eastern Europe. Crimea’s complete separation from Ukraine would devastate Putin’s efforts. Russia’s seizure of Crimea thus seems to be simply a means of ensuring the voice of Russia-supporting Ukrainians continues to be heard and to wield political influence in Ukrainian politics. The problem with Putin’s strategy, however, is that the Ukraine’s current political instability originated from the fact many Ukrainians want less of Putin’s Russia and more of the EU. Former President Yanukovych’s decision to bring Ukraine closer to Russia as opposed to the EU is precisely what sparked the protests in Kiev. So many Ukrainians, in particular the generation born after the fall of the USSR, eagerly want stronger economic and political ties to the EU. These Ukrainians have witnessed how membership in the EU has helped the former Soviet Socialist Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as well as the former Eastern Bloc communist states of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. The inclusion of these countries into the EU is a sign that Eastern Europeans want little to do with Russia. This trend of Eastern European countries aligning themselves to the EU is one Russia can do little now to stop from seeping into Ukraine. It’s all but impossible to prevent Ukrainians from wanting closer ties to the EU or from having Ukraine perhaps join the EU one day. Using military force to ensure that Ukraine does not tie itself so quickly to the EU, however, will likely strengthen the Ukrainian people’s conviction that Ukraine’s future is brighter with the EU. Putin is only hastening this inevitable trend. His rash decision to invade and occupy Crimea is little more than a last minute effort to prevent yet another Eastern European neighbor from aligning itself with the EU, which would mean the complete collapse of Russian influence in Eastern Europe and which would bring Putin a geopolitical catastrophe. PP
9
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
‘IT’S NOT ME, IT’S YOU’—TIME TO END THE CHRISTIANITY/ GOP MARRIAGE by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
T
he problem with “social conservatism” is that it is an oxymoron. By stating that people aren’t allowed to marry this person, can’t have this medical procedure done, or can’t buy this product, “social conservatives” are going against the basic tenets of conservatism—small government. “Social conservatives” want a government so small that it fits into a family’s budget, a couple’s bedroom, and a woman’s doctor’s office. This type of political agenda is not conservatism—it is simple religious dogma. In our two party system, the religious right has been squished together in the same party as the pragmatic fiscal conservatives. The Republican Party has readily accepted this dichotomy for the past decades, but it has recently become a problem. Many pundits will talk about the GOP’s civil war—where the Tea Party doctrine is trying desperately to overtake the fiscal conservatism that was the keystone of the party of Eisenhower. The Republican Party has become married to Christianity. The GOP has taken up tenets of faith and used them as planks in their party platform in order to usurp the religious voters that misguidedly believe the United States is a Christian nation. By doing this, the Republican Party gets further weighed down by “social conservative” issues instead of fighting for what they should be champions of—small government. The Democratic Party is becoming the party of acceptance and tolerance because the GOP is becoming the party of hateful and theocratic rhetoric. It’s isolating voters from the GOP and it is bringing the entire American political spectrum to the right. In a recent Pew Poll, it was revealed that 20% of conservatives consider themselves nonreligious. One fifth of all potential Republican voters will find it hard to vote for GOP candidates because “God, Guns, and Gays” has become the rallying cry for the “social conservative” politicians. These are people that are more inclined to stay home on Election Day than to go out and cast a ballot for a Democrat they disagree with fiscally or a Republican they disagree with socially.
My own opinions about religion in politics aside, the GOP is committing suicide by continuing to combine Christianity and conservatism. In a nation where the number of all denominations of Christianity, save Catholicism amongst immigrant communities, is declining, the right will only further isolate the pragmatic fiscal conservatives and encourage often lopsided libertarianism. The GOP is dying. Ignoring the ideologues on Fox News, there are no political analysts that truly believe a Republican can succeed at a national election again if the GOP continues down this road. It is even starting to get difficult to elect these candidates in state-wide elections. A redirect is needed. The base is leaving. The GOP must break up with Christianity and say that it is okay to be non-religious, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or any other religious distinction. Progress always overcomes its obstacles, and the Christian right is its biggest one. The day will come when national public opinion has moved so far beyond the GOP that the scramble to catch up will be ineffective and embarrassing. And that day is not far away. The Tea Party is gaining momentum in some of the most backward areas of the Bible Belt. The Koch Brothers are using billions of dollars to indoctrinate any and all that will listen. But the rest of us are moving past it. These elected officials have become equivalent with gnats buzzing in our ears—annoying and impossible to get rid of, but doing nothing of significance. These people are being associated with the Republican Party. These people are driving pragmatists to the left side of the aisle. These people are dragging the Grand Old Party down. A revitalization is needed or the Republican Party will die. Christianity certainly isn’t bad. But when its doctrine becomes a political platform, people begin to feel isolated. Unless the whole country is prepared to change the twoparty system, the parties are going to have to change. PP
10
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
THE RETURN OF ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVISM AND ‘WARREN DEMOCRATS’ by Adrian Carney ’14, Staff Writer
T
his January, Bill de Blasio was sworn in as the mayor of New York, a solid progressive who regaled voters with a campaign against income inequality and the ‘tale of two cities’. He is not the only progressive to win a major election in recent months. Elizabeth Warren won her Senate Seat in Massachusetts, even after a vicious campaign by her opponent, Scott Brown. Granted, a few progressive Democrats winning office in highly liberal enclaves do not necessarily indicate a broader trend. But if we consider a series of legislative trends and recent polls of popular opinion, there is a growing consensus in favor of progressive ideals, and a growing backlash against the regressive obstructionism which plagues the extreme elements of the Republican Party. The past 30 years have repeatedly witnessed presidential candidates argue in favor of deregulating markets. Reagan was only the first of the market deregulators, and the general trend has continued through Clinton and the Bush years. Even President Obama continues tacitly encourage to the ideas of Reaganomics. This move towards deregulation was arguably one of the main causes of the 2007-8 economic crash, but also contributed to its anemic recovery. But what do the American people want? Gallup conducted a series of polls with startling results. Even though a majority of Americans did not necessarily describe themselves as progressive, the majority of them supported welfare reform and expansion. Many disapproved of the term Obamacare, but are in favor of its individual provisions. They are in favor of continuing unemployment insurance, as well as raising the minimum wage. The increasing deficit has raised concerns about austerity and budget cuts, but American citizens are against cutting those services as well. The problems of income inequality have been exacerbated by the continued demand for fiscal austerity. This once might have been a technically driven policy solution for some earlier inefficiency in the budget, but now the implementation of such ideas has become petrified dogma.
It demands further cuts instead of any other action. When the President proposed a new budgetary stimulus, the reaction from Congressional Republicans was to prepare another vote to repeal Obamacare for the 50th time. There is no longer a coherent plan, just stubborn opposition. A main problem of the political left is how far it has moved to the right in attempts to appease it. If the left makes a stand towards compromise in good faith, then the right only feels further emboldened to call for even more budget cuts. At some point, the left must draw a line in the sand and become more assertive in creating a new plan which steps away from the repetitive chants of budget cuts and austerity. The Left of today might learn from the lessons of the past, of the New Deal and the Great Society, and modify these vaunted institutions for future demographics. I have often heard cynicism from people who were once so devoted to the questions of social justice. They acknowledge the problem that both political parties have become so corrupt, so inundated with the demands of special interests that they see no real hope for any substantial reform in any issue. I will naturally concede that there is a growing gap between the people’s needs and the government’s action, but that is exactly why we need further interest in politics. A weary cynicism does nothing to help while people still suffer from poverty, systemic discrimination, or the ‘slower deaths of addiction’. If the national stage is too grand a project to work on at the moment, then work locally, or on one certain issue of your expertise. Listen. Think. Act. Is a return to progressivism imminent? The elections of Warren and de Blasio demonstrate that there is some interest in it. But even if the word ‘progressive’ or even ‘liberal’ are tainted in the minds of many by years of propaganda and false association with imaginary evils, the support for such policies still exists. There still remains a compelling need for economic justice and a sound bedrock for the new recovery to build itself upon. The new Gilded age has fallen away, and now a new progressivism must rise up and act for economic and social justice. PP
11
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT! by Valentin Weber ’14, Contributing Writer
A
lot will be on the line at the upcoming European elections on May 25th. Voter turnout has fallen steadily since the first European elections in 1979,. It was at 43% in 2009, with a historic low in Slovakia, where only 19% turned up at the voting ballots. The causes for this failure are evident. Firstly, European elections normally lack the heated debates and political campaigns of national elections. And secondly, the European policy process is so convoluted that most people outside Brussels do not believe that their vote can bring about any change. Right-wing parties have historically dominated the political debate in the European Union. Marine Le Pen’s FN or Nigel Farage’s UKIP continue to criticize the EU for accumulating massive powers without simultaneously garnering the same level of democratic legitimacy. The EU is not undemocratic. However, its institutional operations are somewhat foreign to the European people. Its Executive branch, the European Commission, is an unelected body of technocrats while its Legislative branch, the European Parliament, is an unknown body, completely detached from the daily lives of the European citizens. So what should be done to combat the crisis of apathy among citizens? Well, crisis is always a good time to rethink and change strategy. Leading members of the European Parliament grasped the opportunity and proposed something radically new for the European elections in May 2014. For the first time people will have the possibility of choosing among parties who have each nominated a candidate for the President of the European Executive (European Commission). After the elections the candidate of the leading party is most likely to become “President” of the Executive. The Party of the European Socialists (PES) put forward Martin Schulz, the incumbent President of the European Parliament. While the Socialist candidate was known for a long time, the European People’s Party (EPP) declared its candidate, Jean-Claude Juncker (a former Prime Minister of Luxemburg), last Friday. Also small parties such as the Greens or Liberals were not deprived of nominating a contender. On May 15th these candidates
will be expected to vie for the first time in a televised debate, which will be broadcasted throughout Europe. The Europeans will thus finally see a face whose policies they can identify with. If the “Presidential” candidate can fulfill his electoral promises, people will again vote for his party. Jean Claude Juncker (the People’s Party candidate) for example, put himself out for a common minimal salary in the EU. So far for the internal implications of the European elections in May… The stronger the internal structure, the stronger the external presence. This rule of thumb applies to the EU as well as to other political bodies. An elected President of the European Executive will consolidate the EU’s internal structure, which will be reflected in its external presence. In the case of an emergency, for example, U.S. leaders will have an easier choice of what number to dial in Europe. Once elected, the “President” will also have the same legitimacy as a Head of State, Prime Minister or Chancellor. His or her word should carry the same weight as Angela Merkel’s or David Cameron’s, who were likewise elected through their parliamentary majority . This raises the question: Would national leaders put up with this electoral process in which they forfeit power to a supranational entity? Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor, already put in question that the informal agreement regarding the new Electoral procedure might not apply to Germany. But the German Chancellor will have to accept a candidate people choose. Building democracy on a supranational level might appear chaotic. This is because there is no handbook on how to build a supranational democracy – the EU is a forerunner, so given these circumstances it is doing pretty well. As Robert Schuman, one of the founding fathers of the European Union wrote: “ Europe will not be made all at once.” Indeed, the EU is developing gradually and this radical invention for the European elections in May is a step in the right direction in order to have a strong and democratic EU – internally and externally. PP
12
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 2014
DYLAN WILLIAMS: DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS FOR J STREET
Tuesday, March 11, 2014 Gilman 132
!
6:30 PM
Dylan Williams, J Street's Director of Government Affairs, is coming to campus to speak about his work on Capitol Hill. Learn about the latest developments on the Iran issue, movement on
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and why leaders in Congress pay attention to advocacy by students.
!
Join Hopkins J Street U on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. in
Gilman 132 for the thoughtprovoking talk.
!
A must-see for students interested in international affairs, government affairs, politics, policy, and the law!
13
Volume XV, Issue VI
the
POLITIK PRESS
MARCH 10th, 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 14