viewpoinT

“The better you can base your foundation of economics in real rigorous quantitative analysis and evidence, the better you’ll be as a policymaker, the better you’ll be as an economist, the better you’ll be is a real evaluator of good policy or bad policy.” ryan said he encourages looking at a data-based analysis to try to remove confirmation bias.

“I would encourage everybody in the field of economics to try and remove your confirmation bias as best you possibly can. And just look at data, and look at evidence,” ryan said. “[It will] really help you form good decisions.”

When the lecture moved to a Q&A format, many questions centered around the ryan’s opinion on economic policy decisions made during the covId-19 pandemic. one question posed to ryan asked what the usA can do to pull themselves out of this economic recession and if any policy should be put in place to protect against a pandemic caused recession from happening in the future. ryan said that although our country already has unemployment benefits in place, he believes stimulus checks are the most important way to help our economy right now.

“We already have emergency unemployment — we already have excessive emergency unemployment,” ryan said. “That’s one of the sticking points of this additional $600 a week benefit. eightythree percent of American workers were making more money in unemployment than they were in working ... so you’re basically denying the economy labor by saying to a person, ‘don’t worry. We’ll pay you more than if you do work.’” ryan also said that in the future, congress could create programs for a more targeted stimulus that only includes the people who truly need it.

Another question ryan received was on how to best handle the united states’ current debt crisis. ryan explained to the audience that better management of our health care system could fix our growing budget deficit.

“I believe that we can have the best healthcare system in the world,” ryan said. “We can have universal coverage, we can guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, we can have a medicare system that all those seniors can rely on and use and is comprehensive and we can get our fiscal house in order to not break the bank and not have a debt crisis. but it’s going to take an acknowledgment that the private sector needs to be involved in the provision of health care.” ryan went on to explain that if principles of free market success can be applied to healthcare, the country can fix the main problem with our current health care system: health inflation.

“I think the answer [to fixing health inflation] is to take the principles that make a free market really work is successful,” ryan said. “one of the best attributes that we have in market economics is that choice and competition can improve quality and bring down costs.”

regarding the country’s current political atmosphere, a question was fielded regarding the recent reveal of the President’s tax returns and if more should be done to limit tax loopholes for the wealthy. ryan replied that there is a copious amount of tax loopholes in our current tax code and that more can be done to prevent the exploitation of those loopholes.

“We have too many loopholes in the tax code,” ryan said. “And the smarter way to raise revenue, without doing more damage to the economy, is to plug loopholes. And then you can have lower tax rates, which is better for the economy.” during the presentation, the former speaker said a notre dame professor, dr. Jim sullivan, gave ryan an idea which he had then turned into law.

“I came to notre dame for a football weekend with my brother and attended a Leo seminar and got an idea,” ryan said. “[We were] talking about how challenging it was to get data and analytics and analysis on what works or what doesn’t work in the poverty space … even though we spent about a trillion dollars on poverty programs on the year, only 1% of that money is spent using evidencebased analysis and then Jim sullivan, an econ[omics] professor at notre dame here, said ‘You guys should do a commission on how to open up all this government data, so that researchers like us can go through it and find out what works and what doesn’t.’” ryan said sullivan’s idea prompted him to write a bill — which has now passed into law — titled the evidence Act that promotes evidence-based policymaking. ryan encourage the building of more relationships between lawmakers and people within our campus community.

“Invite more policymakers to campus to get to know them and to share your thoughts, expertise and ideas with them,” ryan said. “maybe some of them will take your ideas and make them laws.”

Contact Isabella Laufenberg at ilaufenb@nd.edu

Voting

conTInued From PAGe 1

discrimination, mcelroy argued that one issue does not define how to vote correctly.

“It falls on the faithful catholics in their own conscience to bring catholic social teaching in its entirety to bear on their voting choices to us deeply and without partisanship or self-interest... There is no single issue, which in catholic teaching constitutes a ‘magic bullet’ that determines a unitary option for faith-filled voting in 2020,” mcelroy. mcelroy said he believes voting requires reflection on which candidates will further catholic social teaching.

“voting for candidates ultimately involves choosing a candidate for public office, not a stance, nor a specific teaching of the church,” he said. “And for this reason, faithful voting involves careful consideration of the specific ability of a particular candidate to actually advance the common core [of catholic beliefs] and in making this assessment leadership, competence and character all come into play, particularly in the election of a president.” speaking specifically on candidate character, mcelroy noted the importance of the personal qualities of leaders, especially during the covId-19 pandemic.

“The pandemic will be wrenching at every dimension of our national life for a long time to come,” he said. “The personal qualities of our president and congressional leadership will greatly impact whether these coming years will be a time of increased suffering and division or a time of healing and unity.” mcelroy also condemned those who deny candidates’ catholic identity because of their stance on specific political issues.

“being catholic means trying to transform the world by the light of the Gospel of Jesus christ,” he said. “To reduce that magnificent multi-dimensional gift of God’s love to a single question of public policy is repugnant and should have no place in public discourse. In the end, it is the candidate on the ballot, not a specific issue.”

When pondering which candidates to vote for, mcelroy suggests the use of the virtue prudence.

“It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience and catholic social teaching,” he said. “Prudence is called the charioteer of the virtues. It keeps the virtues all in balance and it provides insights of moral perspectives for the disciples confronting ethically complex problems.”

As long as prudence and prayerful consideration is used in voters’ decisions, mcelroy states it is legitimate for catholics to reelect President donald Trump or vote for former vice President Joe biden.

“This is a decision which falls rightfully and fully to the individual and informed conscience of believers and — if exercised in this manner — will be a moment of grace for the voter and for our nation rebuilding our political culture,” he said. mcelroy posits that voters will not only be responsible for voting this year but also for looking into solutions to troubling national political behavior.

“The primary responsibility of the faithful citizen is to exercise their right to vote having discerned in their conscience the choices presented to them in light of the gospel and the teaching of the church,” he said. “This year, there will be an additional and similarly paramount responsibility of faithful citizens which will occur after the election, in the imperative to transform and rebuild our broken political culture.”

To fix the country’s flawed political culture, mcelroy spoke about the importance of the virtues of compassion, solidarity, and dialogue. he noted that compassion is critical to tending to human suffering.

“We must follow the example of the Good samaritan who had no connection of faith or blood to the beaten man by the side of [the] road who risked his own life by ministering to him when the robbers might still have been near and who only saw human suffering and that was enough,” he said. mcelroy argues that solidarity is part of putting others before yourself in a world where every individual is

GENEVIEVE COLEMAN | The Observer

Bishop Robert McElroy spoke to the College community Tuesday evening about how to vote as a Catholic in the upcoming election.

connected to one another.

“It means continual willingness to place the common good before our own self-interest,” he said. “It means recognizing the bonds which ties us to every man and woman and child in our own society and to the world as a whole.”

For mcelroy, dialogue is an issue that can only be fixed with patience and understanding of other’s perceptive.

“We have parallel monologues seeking not understanding and encounter, but melody to defend our opinions, reinforce our prejudices and convince ourselves that we have been right,” he said. “All redemption of our political culture cannot begin until a genuine toleration of and thirst for dialogue enters back into the public square. The depth of our current national crisis will not be addressed on a substance of level, unless we as a society engage more deeply, honestly and openly with those whom we disagree on important questions of culture, economics, partisanship and religious beliefs.”

At the conclusion of his lecture, mcelroy took questions from his virtual audience. In response to a question about the complicated process of voting, mcelroy had a simple solution.

“one way to simplify [voting] is when you’re sitting down to fill out your ballot, think of Jesus being there by your side as you go down the ballot,” he said. “Just think to him being there, watching you as you do it and think to yourself, ‘In the end, what I really think Jesus would want me to do in this case?’ and if you do that authentically, that’s a great way to vote.”

THE OBSERVER | Wednesday, OctOber 14, 2020 | NDSMCOBSERVER.COM

InsIde cOlumn

Democratic socialism now

Crystal Ramirez

News Writer

It was during Bernie Sanders’ initial run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 that I became better acquainted with the term democratic socialist, and was intrigued by the idea of a socialist government. Bernie’s platform was especially appealing to an individual like me, a middle to lower class college student, in debt with no healthcare. However, I never took action over this newfound interest, and it was not until he ran again in 2020 that I better allocated myself with democratic socialism, and how it would look applied and established in U.S politics today.

I think what kept me from delving into the ideology, or even simply learning more, was the unconscious negative connotation I had of socialism. In my mind, socialism seems like something radical that could possibly take from U.S. freedoms and, at times, seemed to me to be too similar to the idea of communism.

It was during the spring semester of my freshman year that I decided I would learn more about democratic socialism and learn about the ways it works. That semester, I decided to attend a YDSA meeting over at Notre Dame. There was no particular reason behind attending a meeting — I was just interested in learning more. And the idea of being in an environment where others’ political views would be somewhat aligned to mine, as well as the opportunity for a civil, engaged and mutually respectful conversation over policy, was very appealing.

It was still a surprise that what was most compelling to me about this meeting — what I thought inherently was not going to happen — was exactly what I was met with. It was a different environment to what I am used to at Saint Mary’s, and knowing others were wanting to gather and take action towards change from the tri-campus community created a sense of solidarity that had a huge impact on me.

If you would have asked me a year ago what political party I aligned with, without a second of doubt I would’ve answered “Democrat,” and that would’ve concluded the answer. But thinking about it now, if someone would have gone a step further and asked me why, I wouldn’t have an elaborate, thought-out answer, and rather a general sentiment of “Republican bad, Democratic good,” on the basis that conservative foundations of the Republican Party are oppressive and go against my political agenda.

Today, if someone were to ask me how I align politically, I like to believe I would take a couple of seconds to ponder, then answer confidently: “Democratic socialist.” Not only that, but if asked why, I would assert that the government should meet the needs of the people it governs: basic human rights such as healthcare, free higher education and government aid during times of need.

Hard-working individuals and their families, no matter their socioeconomic status, are rightfully entitled to healthcare. Future leaders and young adults who wish to further their education should be able to do so without drowning in debt, and the government should be able to provide basic human necessities like housing and nutrition in the face of economic instability.

It is now, with this newfound point of view and knowledge, that I urge for democratic socialism, more than ever. I look forward to a future — a tangible future — in which ecosystems and communities don’t burn in flames, clean water is accessible to all and there are still agricultural yields.

A future in which we encourage future leaders and participating citizens not only through words, but through actions, such as free higher education. A future in which everyone who needs medical attention, no matter how small, has accessibility to care at little to no cost.

I await the day I can attend another NDYDSA meeting, as the school fails to acknowledge the group as an official club; but that is no problem, for they cannot silence our independent actions and words until the day we can gather, advocate and continue to create change. Until then I urge you to engage in civic participation and vote, not just party-line voting, but educating yourself on the candidates and their platforms to have the biggest impact through your vote.

Voting by mail during a pandemic

Blake Ziegler

News with Zig

As we move into the fall, coronavirus cases continue to rise. The United States is tallying over 45,000 new cases daily. Deaths are expected to reach nearly 400,000 by February of next year, according to latest projections. With the presidential election only three weeks away, it is fairly common knowledge we will still be dealing with COVID-19 on Election Day. How will we facilitate a nationwide election during a global pandemic? With traditional polling places, voters may be discouraged from turning out due to fear of a potential outbreak.

The most likely contender is mail-in ballots. Mail-in ballot requests are surging in record numbers across the nation in anticipation of the election. In fact, Illinois is already seeing record numbers of requests for mail-in ballots. Sixty-five percent of Americans in a May poll supported mail-in ballots, including 66% of independents. However, President Donald Trump has come out adamantly against this measure. He has made multiple statements claiming mail-in voting would lead to widespread election fraud, even tweeting that mail-in ballots would make November “the most RIGGED Election in our nations history.” Attorney General Bill Barr agreed with the president, suggesting absentee ballots are susceptible to fraud, citing that foreign countries “could print up tens of thousands of counterfeit ballots” to influence the election. Additionally, 53% of Republicans are against mail-in ballots, according to a USA Today poll.

However, these claims of voter fraud and worry of election interference are unfounded and differ starkly from the truth. The secretaries of state from almost 30 states affirmed the integrity and reliability of their state electoral process. Unique security protocols, including signature verification software, registration vetting, ballot barcodes unique to registered voters and other measures all work to limit the chances of voter fraud in any fashion. Additionally, as explained by the Brennan Center for Justice, the use of secure dropoff locations, drop boxes and post-election audits serve to prevent any attempt at interfering with the election.

In fact, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington have conducted all-mail elections in the past and found no widespread instances of voter fraud “at levels greater than most other non-all-mail voting states.” If anything, this means that voter fraud in a mail-in election is no different than a regular election. Even still, the chances of voter fraud are incredibly slim. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has been recording instances of voter fraud since 1982. In that time, there have only been 200 cases of absentee fraud in all states. The facts show that mail-in ballots are not likely to lead to election fraud. This should remove any worry of misrepresentations in ballot counts or a rigged election.

Nevertheless, there are still valid concerns about a mail-in election. In many states, absentee ballots are considered an afterthought, too small to sway the outcome of an election. However, the rising number of mail-in ballots due to coronavirus has strained the electoral infrastructure of these states, making it difficult to collect and count these ballots. New York was struggling to count the results of their June 23 primary, where 1-in-5 absentee ballots were expected to be disqualified; 40,000 to 50,000 voters in Georgia who requested an absentee ballot for the primary never received one, according to Georgia House Minority Leader Bob Trammell. Across the nation, we are seeing states that typically do not rely on a mail voting system failing to facilitate the democratic process during this health crisis. Even Michigan, a state that utilizes mail-in ballots regularly on a widespread basis, has clerks saying they will not be able to give election results on Nov. 3. If states do not rectify this and provide election officials with the proper resources and capacity to receive and count mailin ballots, this can spell disaster for November.

Additionally, voters themselves need to be aware of restraints on mail-in voting. The tiniest mistake on the forms can lead to one’s ballot being uncounted. Whether it is not signing one’s name enough times, filling in the wrong box or even mailing the ballot late, the slightest error can rob one from participating in the democratic process. If half the electorate votes by mail, it is projected that over one million ballots will be rejected. This is especially true for young Black and Latino voters who are more likely to have their ballots rejected due to these errors, according to Charles Stewart, a political scientist at MIT. I implore voters across the country to be aware of their state’s mail-in procedures to ensure you can effectively participate in the election. Vote.org provides an easy form to request an absentee ballot, complete with deadlines and procedures for mailing your ballot. Additionally, this article outlines how to fill out your mailin ballot to avoid common errors.

Government officials across the country should be encouraging and providing the means for a mail-in election to accommodate Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is the most efficient, reliable and safest method to exercise citizens’ democratic duty while providing for the common welfare and health of our nation. However, for this system to work, the electoral system must be equipped with the proper resources and training. Citizens must also be aware of the deadlines and procedures to vote by mail to ensure the greatest participation among our citizenry.

Blake Ziegler is a sophomore at Notre Dame from New Orleans, Louisiana, with double majors in political science and philosophy. He loves anything politics, especially things he doesn’t agree with. For inquiries, he can be reached at bziegler@nd.edu or @ NewsWithZig on Twitter if you want to see more of his opinions.

The views expressed in this column are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Observer.

THe obSeRveR | Wednesday, OctOber 14, 2020 | ndSMcobSeRveR.coM

For the simps

Sydni Brooks everything is Fine

So you got played. Whether it was by a friend, a family member or a lover, things hit the fan, and the fan obliterated whatever the thing was. You’ve been trying to put the pieces back together to formulate some resemblance of what things were to salvage the relationship you had, but half of the pieces are missing. The smart, healthy and responsible thing to is to learn and grow from the situation and move on from this experience.

However, no one said we were smart, healthy or reasonable in this situation.

My blessing and curse as an overly compassionate person is my ability to look outside myself and advocate for the prosperity of other people before giving myself the time of day. I will preach, “Girl, you don’t need him!” and, “You deserve better people around you, queen!” to anyone and everyone suffering from losing a meaningful relationship, but when those same words grace my ears, my brain deliberately choses not to process them.

I have always thought the best way to show someone you love and care for them is to fight through the differences and fight for the relationship, but it is astronomically clear that isn’t necessarily the best option in all cases. Yet while I can detail that to others around me, I can never comprehend that message for myself.

Those cliché messages I regurgitate to anyone needing to hear them sometimes don’t actually connect to the root of the frustration of letting someone go. I can recognize that I don’t need another person to survive; I survived up until I met them by myself, and I will continue to survive without them in my life. I can acknowledge when someone treats me poorly, and I can actively chose to only involve myself with people that treat me with respect.

The tightest knots unwilling to unravel themselves in these situations are the emotional bonds we never thought we would have to let go of. It isn’t necessarily the act of letting that significant person go that causes so much pain — it is the concept you never thought you would have

Justice Mory

In the Interest of Justice

The human desire to be right is not necessarily a bad thing. This phenomenon drives people toward knowledge and truth, looking at evidence to make sense of it and forming views from it that are substantiated. However, what can be destructive is the competing human desire to have been right, in the past tense. often, feeding into this line of thinking will cause not only stubbornness but willful ignorance even when presented with new information. Additionally, this only compounds the issue of confirmation bias, as all unfamiliar or novel information will only be looked at from angles that follow one’s preconceived notions. It is then less challenging for us to stay thinking the same way than to change, especially when we only see what we expect or want to see. one of the paramount issues is the way views are formed, especially concerning political or social topics. Many people have beliefs or conclusions they accept based on the beliefs or conclusions of their family, friends, community or even their own initial reactions. If these views are held onto without any additional individual research or thought, then maintaining these views is doing it backward. Instead of reviewing available information

to let them go that hurts the most.

Letting go of a relationship or friendship that no longer benefits us forces us to take responsibility for our well-being, but it isn’t the most desired method of self-care. Recognizing the lessons learned from a relationship or friendship is one thing, but taking accountability for the actions we must take to better ourselves is another. The self control in not checking social media updates or asking for closure for the fourth time can feel agonizing and unfullfilling, but sometimes the back and forth of holding on is much more painful.

Removing ourselves from a relationship or friendship sometimes feels like we are giving up on the person, which feels problematic because we would hate for someone to give up on us. However, we don’t recognize we aren’t giving up anything. The relationship has KERRY SCHNEEMAN | The Observer already ended, and we are still holding up our end of the bargain by ourselves. It is exhausting reliving the positive moments with the people we once loved to try and remind ourselves why the bad moments are worth sticking around for. It is so punishing riding an emotional rollercoaster with a person only to verbalize you have fought in a battle you know you are going to lose. It is absurd to be this tired over other people in our twenties. and doing any kind of research to find evidence to support a claim and draw conclusions, people are starting with results. When people begin with conclusions, it only increases the likelihood you are likely to only believe in, look at and accept evidence that supports these prior convictions. This cherry-picking of evidence only leads to biased viewpoints.

How can we get past this? Perhaps if we tried to sions more like scientists, utilizing the scientific method we could reduce biases or prejudices. These steps include defining a KERRY SCHNEEMAN | The Observer purpose, constructing a hypothesis, testing this hypothesis and collecting data, analyzing this data, drawing a conclusion and communicating this result. The only way to minimize ignorance is to look at the evidence before making a firm conclusion on an issue. by doing this, we can all be more informed and base our views less on assumptions or others’ views and more on reality. Additionally, there will Most of us haven’t legally consumed alcohol yet — why are we so pressed?

We are pressed because we care, and sometimes we care too much, or we don’t have the same magnitude of care for ourselves. We are so focused on what our life will look like at the end of the story of our relationship, we forget we are presently living in our own story in which we are the main character.

While I do believe that letting go of a negative relationship makes room for more valuable ones to foster, I want to stress the importance of letting yourself foster. Sure, there are plenty of fish in the sea, but what about our fins? What about our gills? We can waste time trying comprehend why the energy we put into saving our relationship rendered fruitless, or we can value the efforts we made while stepping back from it for our own improvement. Letting go might leave a hole where the other person’s value once resided, but it creates the opportunity to fill that hole with our own self love and reflection.

Sometimes we save room at the table for someone who already told us they weren’t coming to dinner. As we demand our peers to see themselves through our eyes by letting their toxic relationship or friendship go, we have to start articulating that same message to ourselves. We hear the clichés, “You’ll be better off without them” and, “They’ll be jealous watching you thrive,” but letting go of a relationship or friendship that isn’t serving us isn’t necessarily about the other person’s feelings. It is about our own health and well-being. It is about regaining our own internal balance after pouring out so much of ourselves to someone who isn’t able to reciprocate it.

Sydni Brooks is junior at Notre Dame majoring in English with a supplemental major in pre-health and a minor in Africana Studies. Originally from Cincinnati Ohio, she has made Flaherty Hall her campus home. She aspires to be a gynecologist to serve women from all backgrounds in the medical field. Sydni can be reached at sbrooks2@nd.edu or @sydnimaree22 on Twitter.

The views expressed in this column are those of the

Biased viewpoints

form concluauthors and not necessarily those of The Observer. be less resistance to changing or adapting one’s judgments upon consideration of new information. This is because one ties his or herself less to preformed conclusions, putting more prioritization on evidence.

I will acknowledge political and social issues aren’t perfectly adaptable to science or experiments. This way of thinking is not perfect, and it will not eliminate all bias. We are human after all. but by pursuing facts and truth before settling into our beliefs, we can build the best views we can, and that is enough. There will still inevitably be disagreements. even if everyone looked at the same evidence and used the same method, people will come to different conclusions. However, conversations and debates where both sides are at least honestly informed and acting in good faith will be a lot more productive. by focusing less on who is right or wrong and more on sharing evidence and learning from one another, we will all be better off.

Justice Mory is majoring in Business Analytics and is part of the John W. Gallivan Program in Journalism, Ethics and Democracy. He is from Southern California and now lives in Duncan Hall. His main goal is to keep learning and to continue to become more informed. He can be reached at jmory@nd.edu or @JmoryND on Twitter.

The views expressed in this column are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Observer.