CONTENTS THIS MONTH’S ISSUE A FEW WORDS FROM THE 11TH BOARD
Though the presidential elections have come to a close, there still remains a lot of uncertainty yet to play out. The day after voting closed, there were a series of conversations on campus about what happened and what remains ahead of us. The topics we heard under the tents ranged from a discussion over why and for whom our vote should serve to how privilege plays out in voting patterns. Despite the wide range of opinions and beliefs we heard, respect was always shown, opinions were all considered, and individuals were all ready to learn. These series of conversations showed us that despite the immense polarization in the country, there was always a way to reach each other through dialogue. Lawrentians have been highly active on campus this Fall—covid-restrictions permitting—as various clubs and organizations from RLC to Young Democrats open events that encourage healthy debate surrounding the presidential election and political climate of the United States. Further, the results of TFA’s most recent Pop Perspective Survey indicate that the vast majority of respondents take it upon themselves to remain informed and vote on policy—on which there appear to be a variety views among the student body—as well as stay engaged with the issues they care about; almost 50% have attended peaceful protests/demonstrations. This issue of The First Amendment hopes to inspire action. Whether it’s the climate crisis, the ongoing fight for justice in the country, or other particular issues waiting to be championed by our generation, there still remains a lot to be done. Through these pages, we grappled with the relationship between the people and their respective democracies. We hope that you will also reflect on past events to see what conversations are to be had, what ideas are to be fought for, and what actions are to be taken. - The 11th Board
FALL
#SETTLEFORBIDEN
This article explores the positives of the lesser of two evils, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden triumphing over President Donald Trump. 03-04
KAMALA HARRIS PROFILE
An in-depth look at the U.S.’ first female and first biracial vice president, including her history and her goals moving forward. 05-06
ELECTORAL COLLEGE: PRO
In a time when the fairness of the electoral college have been called into question, this article upholds the effectiveness of the current system. 07-08
ELECTORAL COLLEGE: CON
The electoral college continues to be an incredibly controversial topic in American politics, especially after the most recent election. Josephson ’22 explains the cons of the electoral college, as well as potential solutions. 9-10
ROLE OF INTERNET IN FUNDRAISING There was an increased use of social media as a means to convey political ideas throughout the 2020 election. In her article, Carina Li ‘22 discusses the relationships between social media and today’s political climate. 11
HEARD UNDER THE TENT
Snippets of dialogue Lawrentians have engaged in regarding the elction and politics this month as campus clubs and organizations encourage dialogue & debate. 12
MLK VS BLACK POWER
Gabby Medina ‘21 speaks out about the distinction between the two parallel movements associated with the Civil Rights movement, discussing the pertinence of their legacies today. 13-14
BLM & PALESTINE
As the BLM movement continues in the United States, Esha Akhtar ‘21 explores the parallels between the US movement and the BLM movement in Palestine, pairing Palestinian liberation and Black rights. 15-16
1
2020
INFLUENCE OF BELARUSIAN PROTESTS
A features analysing the foreign influence in the Belarusian protests, from the European Union to the Hong Kong protestors. 17-18
CHESS AGAINST A WRESTLER
An on-the-ground look at and reflection of the Belarusen protests from Lawrenceville student Yan Tsenter ’23. 19
ABE’S SUCCESSION & LEGACY
Victoria Gong ‘21 writes about Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, discussing the pros and cons of his leadership shaping of modern Japan. 20
CHINA AND THE 2020 ELECTION
A look at how policies associated with China have impacted voters’ assessment of the candiditaes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. 21-22
U.S. INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION
Amid covid-19 and the tumultous 2020 eletion, how can the U.S. mantain its role on the international stage? 23-24
THIRD PARTY VOTING
Gian Beritela ’22 discusses the rationale behind third-party voting and its growing importance as the 2020 presidential election nears. 25-26
NON-PARTISAN SPECTRUM
Bipartisanship generally shapes politics in the United States, but some issues aren’t divided by clear party lines—rather, they align more with individual voters’ interests regardless of their affiliate political party. In this article, the author analyzes the factors behind voters’ decisions on these increasingly nonpartisan issues. 27-28
POP PERSPECTIVE: ELECTION POLL
An assessment of Lawrentians’ political views & engagement. 29-30
COVID-19 STIMULUS FUNDING
MASTHEAD Editors-in-Chief Jasper Zhu ’21 Cherie Fernandes ’21 Executive Editors Avigna Ramachandran ’21 Mac Dilatush ’21 Domestic Editors Ben Polaski ’21 Nico Torres ’22 Features Editor Mel Josephson ’22 International Editor Jupiter Huang ’21 Senior Columnists Victoria Gong ’21 Chris Pandapas ’21 Lucia Wetherill ’21 Associate Editors Ethan Leung ’23 Ashley Wang ’23 Amelie Wickham ’22 Carina Li ’22 Daniel Zhu ’23 Faculty Advisor Anne Louise Smit P’10 ’13 Cover Art by Jasper Zhu ’21 Contact Us: Like us on Facebook at: facebook.com/firstamendmentlville Follow us on Instagram: lville_thefirstamendment
As stimulus funding continues to be looked at and re evaluated as covid-19 continues, Ashley Wang ‘23 looks further into the benefits and consequences of the previous methods of stimulus funding over the past few months, as well as how those consequences should impact future stimulus funding in order to maintain a return to a normal GDP and employment rates. 31-32 2
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N.I
The Success of the #SettleForBiden Movement Amelie Wickham ’22 As one of the top trending hashtags on social media over the past few months, #settleforbiden has allowed moderates, liberals, and farleftists to join together in a lesserof-two-evils strategy. The Settle for Biden movement is “a progressive grassroots organization comprised primarily of former Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supporters,” according to its website. While President-elect Joe Biden was not many people’s, especially Democrats’, ideal candidate, they felt that four more years of Trump in office could lead to severe consequences in terms of human rights, the environment, and Covid-19. Aside from general policy, many believe that the current racial state of America may be partially accredited to Trump’s verbal validation of white supremacy groups. To vote for Trump for economic gain fully disregards the connection between social and fiscal policies, as many of Trump’s financial policies directly and indirectly affect lower-
class neighborhoods, many of which are composed mostly of people of color. Ultimately, greater awareness of these potential consequences influenced record-breaking voter turnout, allowing Biden to win the 2020 presidential election—a particularly tight race for the White House. Prior to his victory, Biden emphasized his focus on easing racial tensions and addressing issues of racial justice during his four years. On the other hand, Trump has not explicitly prioritized these issues, even in the wake of protests in response to cases of police brutality this past year. In fact, some claim that he has only perpetuated racial divides and polarization during his presidency. In the first presidential debate on September 29, Trump furthered his blatant re-
fusal to denounce white supremacy. When asked to fully condemn white supremacy and white supremacist groups, he skirted the question and reluctantly told the “Proud Boys [to] stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left” Regardless of his intentions behind this statement, white supremacists will interpret this as a call to action, as the statement implies that the Proud Boys should be the ones to do something about “the left and antifa.” Biden quickly countered this point by reminding Trump that antifa is, in fact, an ideology rather than a group. The current racial state of the U.S. is tumultuous, and Americans
“While President-elect Joe Biden was not many people’s, especially Democrats’, ideal candidate, they felt that four more years of Trump in office could lead to severe consequences...” recognized that the country is deeply in need of a president that will make a concerted effort to address racial tensions, rather than a president who will bolster the confidence of white supremacists and make policies that disproportionately and negatively affect people of color. Although Biden has shown strong resistance to defunding the police, he has explained plans to reform the qualified immunity laws, which guarantee police immunity and discretion to civil lawsuits unless there is clear proof that the officer violated the Constitution. He also plans to invest more into education and training for officers, as well as focus on hiring more racially-diverse officers. Trump, on the other hand, has little to no interest in addressing the issues of police brutality. While Biden’s plans may not be perfect
DOMESTIC 3
or complete, any form of addressing the crisis and moving towards change is a stronger start than doing nothing to address the criminal justice system’s blatant systemic flaws. Many of the human rights policies that are currently bringing the most controversy to the election have to do with the black lives matter protests, the economy, and Covid-19— issues that disproportionately affect people of color and minorities. With regards to the pandemic, both candidates wanted to allocate trillions of dollars towards Covid-19 relief, but Trump aimed to spend this amount on one-time aid, while Biden wants to put it towards creating jobs, which would boost the economy. While neither solution is perfect in terms of aiding Covid-19 victims, Biden’s plan of creating jobs is much more effective as a long-term solution to
the economic crisis. The economy is currently on a quicker bounceback than expected, but as we most likely go into a second wave of Covid-19 cases, Biden is more prepared to continue this rebound and ensure that citizens will receive care and welfare, especially those from low-income backgrounds. Aside from Covid-19 and racial inequality, Trump and Biden’s plans for green energy and environmental health differed significantly. Trump showed little to no interest in enforcing or initiating any policy to move the United States towards green energy nor make the nation a global leader in addressing climate change. In fact, Trump rolled back many of the nation’s environmental protection policies during his presidency. Biden, on the other hand, aims to invest money into
greatly increasing the percentage of green energy in America, as well as improving climate diplomacy with other countries. Although his platform states his interest in being part of the Green New Deal, he recently contradicted that stance in the first presidential debate, so his perspective is still to be determined. Although Biden’s stance on his plans for renewable energy is still questionable, he has taken steps to advance this initiative, which is more than can be said about Trump. In the words of Jon Munitz, president of The Hill of Roses, and a political and economic author, “you can vote for someone without supporting them.” While Biden may not align with many leftist or even liberal policies, Americans realized that a vote for a third party is nothing but a vote for Trump, as Biden needed all the votes possible in order to secure the election. Fortunately, Biden emerged victorious, as Americans— mainly Democrats and Republicans not in favor of Trump—cast their votes to ensure that the President did not win another four years in office. As #settleforbiden trended across social media platforms, people realized that a mediocre candidate is still better than Trump. Many Lawrenceville students who were eligible to vote, especially V Formers, also understood the dire consequences of another four years with the Trump administration in office. While Americans recognize Biden’s flaws, they cast their vote for someone who, at the very least, would restore democractic ideals and a sense of unity to the United States.
“In the words of Jon Munitz, president of The Hill of Roses, and a political and economic author, “you can vote for someone without supporting them.” While Biden may not align with many leftist or even liberal policies, Americans realized that a vote for a third party is nothing but a vote for Trump, as Biden needed all the votes possible in order to secure the election.” NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
4
A Woman of Many “Firsts”: Kamala Harris’s Journey to Becoming Vice Presidentelect Ethan Leung ’23 On August 11, 2020, Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as his running mate. Amidst a nationwide protest for the recognition of Black voices, Biden’s selection of Harris was intended to sway voters from marginalized communities and voters who are in support of the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) to vote in favor of the Democratic ticket. While her political background, namely her past performance as a prosecutor, has been met with harsh criticism, the Biden-Harris ticket secured a win in the 2020 presidential election. Their victory not only prevented another four years of Trump in office—which Democrats and even some Republicans were strongly opposed to—but also led Harris to make history as the first Black and South Asian-American woman to become Vice President. Born in 1964 to Donald Harris and the late Shyamala Gopalan, Kamala Harris grew up in Oakland, California, where she received a “strollereye view of the Civil Rights movement,” as her parents brought her to demonstrations from a young age. Her father, a Jamaican-born economist and professor emeritus at Stanford University, and her mother, an Indian-American and former breast cancer researcher, were heavily involved in the civil rights protests of the 1960s. Kamala Harris’s multicultural background and exposure to these movements from a young age influenced both her personal and political beliefs. Being an IndianAmerican and Black woman, she
encourages people to “stop seeing issues and people through a plateglass window as though we were onedimensional.” Instead, she believes that “people exist through a prism and they are a sum of many factors,” and therefore, should be viewed from a multi-dimensional lens. Following her parents’ divorce when she was seven, Kamala Harris’s mother served as her main role model and inspiration. As one of very few women in a scientific field, she cautioned her daughter about sexism, which she was bound to encounter in the professional world. In addition, her mother even inspired her presidential campaign, although she withdrew from the race in December 2019. According to Harris, if she ever complained about something as a child, her mother would ask “Well what are you going to do about it?”— a question that ultimately inspired her to spark real change through her political career, especially now as vice president-elect. Prior to exploring her career in law and politics, it is important to delve into Harris’s education and decision to become both a prosecutor, and subsequently, hold positions in public office. After graduating from Howard University—a historically Black university—in 1986 with a bachelor’s degree in political science and economics, she earned a law degree from the UC Hastings College of Law in 1989. While her
family expected her to pursue civil rights litigation or criminal defense work, she decided to become a prosecutor—a surprising choice, according to those close to her. Harris’s reasoning for choosing this career path, however, was rooted in her desire “to protect the vulnerable and correct imbalances of power.” After witnessing how law enforcement disproportionately impacted disadvantaged populations, she sought to reform the system “from within,” primarily focusing on countering “racially-based narratives about crime” and seeking justice for sexual abuse victims. After receiving her JD and passing the bar exam, Harris worked as a deputy district attorney in Oakland from 1990 to 1998. She prosecuted many cases of gang violence, drug trafficking, and sexual abuse, which earned her tough reputation. That said, her work also helped her win a bid as District Attorney of San Francisco in 2003 and Attorney General of California in 2010 followed by her re-election in 2014. Her address at the Democratic National Convention in 2012 and marriage to attorney Douglas Emhoff elavated her national profile as she was recruited to run for the U.S. Senate, replacing soon-to-be-retired Barbara Boxer. During her campaign, Harris called for immigration
“She believes that ‘people exist through a prism and they are a sum of many factors,’ and therefore, should be viewed from a multi-dimensional lens.” and criminal justice reforms, raising the minimum wage, and protecting womens’ reproductive rights. After winning the election in 2016 and taking office, Harris began her work on both the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee. Following the publishing of her memoir, The Truth we Hold: An American Journey, she announced her presidential campaign for the 2020 election in
FEATURES 5
January 2019. While she performed well at the Democratic debates, Harris’s initial support declined tremendously, after she faced harsh criticism on her background as a prosecutor, leading her to drop out of the race. Although Harris proclaims herself to be a “progressive prosecutor,” her actions have sometimes proved otherwise. As the district attorney of San Francisco in 2003, she was often approached by progressives to embrace criminal justice reform. Contrary to what a “progressive prosecutor” would do, she often stayed silent and occasionally, opposed potential reforms. For example, Harris and her team held back from publicly supporting a 2015 bill that would have granted her office the power to investigate shootings involving police officers. As attorney general, she also used technicalities to prevent the exoneration of inmates who may be wrongfully imprisoned, as evidenced by the case of Kevin Cooper, who is currently on death row. Harris refused to permit advanced DNA testing to cross-check evidence which may have absolved Cooper, who is widely thought to be innocent, as Tulsi Gabbard mentioned in the second Democratic debate. Although Harris was previously strict on crime, she has become more progressive since she entered the Democratic race. The criminal justice plan that she released
during her presidential campaign contained many progressive goals such as reducing the prison population, creating national standards in policing, and ensuring humane treatment for the incarcerated. By working with President-elect Joe Biden, it’s possible that they can achieve these goals and positively impact the country’s law enforcement landscape. On the surface, Biden and Harris’ relationship seemed fraught, especially after she challenged him in the Democratic debates on his past opposition to busing as a means of integrating public schools. Afterwards, she laughed it off, saying “that’s politics,” making her stance on busing seem disingenuous and creating confusion among the public. Immediately after the first Democratic national debate, though, the Biden campaign published a document discussing their compatibility. The document talked about Biden’s son Beau’s close relationship with Harris through their fight together against the banking industry. This, among other reasons, influenced Biden’s decision to choose Harris as his running mate. They both share relatively moderate and centrist views, which largely appealed to the
Democratic population and even to some Republicans who were not in favor of President Trump. Furthermore, the Biden-Harris ticket gained support from marginalized populations, especially due to Harris being a woman and having a multicultural background. In a time of heightened racial tensions, the prospect of a woman of color being vice president naturally increased voter turnout from minority groups, as they looked forward to being represented by the country’s leadership. Beyond the public perception and political implications of their partnership, Harris believes she and Biden “were raised with values that are about hard work, about the value and the dignity of public service and about the importance of fighting for the dignity of all people.” Both Harris and Biden advocated for these values during the course of their campaign, and after a particularly grueling race to the White House, they ultimately emerged successful. Donned in a white pantsuit and blouse—a celebrated symbol of womens’ rights—Harris embraced her many “firsts” in her acceptance speech for Vice President, in which she delivered a particularly powerful statement directed at the young women watching her: “While I may be the first woman in this office, I will not be the last…Because every little girl watching tonight sees that this is a country of possibilities.” As the first woman, Black person, woman of South Asian descent, and daughter of immigrants to be elected as Vice President, Harris has clearly paved the way for women and people of color to dream big, take advantage of new opportunities, and relentlessly pursue their ambitions.
“By working with Presidentelect Joe Biden, it’s possible that they can achieve these goals and positively impact the country’s law enforcement landscape.” NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
6
The Electoral College: A Check on Democracy Brian Kastenberg ’22 The Electoral College system is deeply imperfect. Yet, at its core, it still is the best option for our nation. The Electoral College began at the founding of our nation’s law, the Constitutional Convention. Article Two, Section One of the Constitution establishes the process of selecting the president and vice president, whom the states’ electors vote for. Given numerous options for an election, including legislative, parliamentary, popular, and gubernatorial, the Electoral College was one of our nation’s first compromises between different political factions. The number of electors each state has is equivalent to their total members of Congress—the combination of their representatives and senators. This means the number of electors a state has is also based on arguably the most important agreement in our country: The Connecticut Compromise. This deal established the bicameral legislative branch in which the Senate is even, with all states having two Senators, while the House of Representatives is based on a state’s population. The Electoral College itself is one of our nation’s most federalist policies that is still prevalent
today and safeguards the fair representation this democracy stands for. If not the only unique contribution to political science the founders gave, Federalism is undoubtedly the most important. Alexander Hamilton, the father of the Federalist party and the author of the majority of the articles in the Federalist Papers, argued for the Electoral College by stating that “the President’s election is pretty well guarded.” Hamilton then goes on to claim that he would “venture somewhat further and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it is not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages the union of which was to be desired.” He is essentially explaining that the Electoral College
is not only just the safest option, but also the purest out of all of our institutions. Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School and former solicitor general of the United States, agreed with Hamilton in a New York Times op-ed piece. Fried speaks on how the Electoral College offers a delicate balance between state and federal power: “In order to reflect this mode of governance, the interactions between the national government and the states in important matters often utilize the local units and personnel. The notion is that the states are not simply administrative units of the national government or local offices. In that context, it is quite appropriate that the head of state is elected by popular vote by the people of the state. That way at the most focused democratic moment, every four years the candidates and parties must take the states into account.” The Electoral College, however, works far better than even
“The popular vote, while technically equal, is far from equitable.” Hamilton predicted. Instead of constant and continuous majorities in both Congress and the Executive Branch, the Electoral College provides an important check and balance for a single party. The Electoral
DOMESTIC 7
College also achieves the goal of nonvirtual representation in the sense that elections are ultimately individual state races, even if the presidential race occurs on a national scale. If the presidential voting system shifted from the Electoral College to merely a popular vote, many Americans would be left behind by politicians who only care about what people in the densely-populated areas think. The popular vote, while technically equal, is far from equitable. Without using the Electoral College, a farmer living in the midwest or a factory worker in the Rust Belt would not be given the same amount of attention as someone living in a metropolitan location. Tocqueville called it “the tyranny of the majority”: the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. James Madison, with the support of other founding fathers, once said, “a repub-
lic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” Hamilton clarifies that the Electoral College is meant to preserve “the sense of the people”—if we as Americans were to only use the
the candidate that won the popular vote also secured the presidency. Therefore, with the exception of the 2016 election, the Electoral College is a worthwhile compromise and ensures the protection of marginalized citzens in an increasingly partisan nation. Ultimately, the Federalist ideas that influenced the creation of the Electoral College allow for this republic to take into account the opinions of every state, but also a way to safeguard the demographic minority. Checks on democracy are a good thing. Each party already tends to represent the interest of particular states that tend to be in their base. Removing the Electoral College would only serve to increase favoritism, and consequently, lead to drastic polarization. If anything, the Electoral College offers a brake system on matters, such as the “tyranny of the majority,” that could be terminal to our democracy.
“In 53 out of 58 presidential elections—91 percent of past elections—the candidate that won the popular vote also secured the election.” popular vote, the sense of the people would only be of those who live among dense populations, namely cities. The argument for abolishing the Electoral College made a comeback after the 2016 election, in which President Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton based on Electoral College votes despite Clinton winning the popular vote by almost three million. This instance, however, is an exception to the “rule.” In 53 out of 58 presidential elections—91 percent of past elections—
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
8
The Electoral College: Outdated in a New World Mel Josephson ’22 Every four years, another election passes. Every four years, regardless of the winner, the same story is told. “They won because they spent weeks campaigning in Florida,” or, “I guess Michigan and Maine just swung the other way this year.” Why should our country’s highest office be consistently decided by a system that regularly dissatisfies the American people? The Founding Fathers designed the electoral college as a quick remedy to the factionalism budding in the Continental Congress. This system has been exploited by candidates, solely appealing to swing states’ electoral votes and their faithless electors that are not held to their votes by any legal repercussion. Though in design, the electoral college supports the interests of a wider American perspective, it’s inherently flawed and abused system that prioritizes the needs of politically split states above all others. A shift toward a popular-vote based electorate would better reflect the country in its entirety, pushing the presidential election process, and with it our executive government as a whole, to represent the masses. The year 1787 marked uncharted territory as the second Continental Congress looked to develop the first republic of its kind, based on non-virtual representation and
of election, as they could not be trusted to educate themselves and did not have enough at stake in the federal government. In addition, northern states did not want to be considered as less important because of their size. Along with equal representation in Congress, the north fought to base the presidential election off an equal number of senatorial electors. To them, the United States represented a uniquely diverse array of opinions, and the federal government should reflect the nuance of discourse within the people it governs. A truly-popular system, in their mind, completely jeopardizes this ideal. In a compromise, the Continental Congress enacted a system where the people of each state would nominate a group of temporary electors to vote on behalf of the state’s opinion. This decision gained unanimous support in 1787 and has been accepted at face value for centuries. What was not decided on, and acts as the inherent flaw of this plan, is how electors would be chosen. In most states, individual electors are nominated by political parties in a general ticket system in which the voter casts a ballot, not for the president, but for the individual electors pledged to vote for that candidate. Whichever party gets the most popular votes gains control of all state electorates in a winner-takes-all system. In most states with this system, the names of individual electors are not even noted on the ballot, just
peaceful transfers of power. This convention needed to compromise on nearly every major issue as geographic factionalism plagued the government before the government had even formed. Similar to the Connecticut Compromise that established a bicameral Congressional legislature, debates over the presidential election split the delegates into two parties. Larger states argued that the president should be elected based purely on a popular vote, an idea formulated on the belief that in a democracy, everyone should get an equal voice. The popular vote may seem like an obvious solution, but in reality, support for this policy stemmed from the densely populous nature of the agriculture-based economy in the south that could vastly outnumber the smaller, northern states. The Three-Fifths compromise, the declaration that every five enslaved individuals “This system has been exploited by counted as three indicandidates, solely appealing to swing viduals when it came states’ electoral votes and their faithto voting representaless electors that are not held to their tion, dramatically invotes by any legal repercussion.” creased the proportion of southern voters in comparison the choice between “electors” for to northern voters. In return, the each candidate. The general ticket north fought radically on the oth- system places even more emphasis er side of the coin. Caught in the on the larger states, where winbeginnings of Federalism, they ning just 50 percent of the people believed that the ordinary person in those areas would result in a dishad no place in deciding the course proportionate gain in electoral col-
DOMESTIC 9
lege votes. This phenomenon has forced candidates to focus solely on the undecided states that hold enough congressional power to shift the election against the popular vote in an upset. While this kind of upset does not always occur, and the popular vote may win the electorate, most modern elections are often won based on the decision of the eight or nine aforementioned states. The North fought to check the popular vote in hopes of representing the full political landscape of the U.S. In this new country, however, that same system actually limits the ability for our democracy to truly represent its people. The idea of changing the Electoral College to mimic changes in the country is not a radical one; proposals to amend that system has already been made. Article II, Section I of the Constitution states that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The document deems the process of choosing specific electors to state discretion. This clause also opens up opportunities for pro-populous legislators to try and balance the scales. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a bill voted into law by 14 states and Washington D.C. that allocates regional electoral votes
towards the winner of the popular election. In addition to these 15 regions, the bill is on the floor of many state legislatures ready to be voted upon. The NPVIC will begin to take effect when the total electoral influence of the compact reaches 270 votes; the coalition stands at 187 as of October 12. This plan is not far fetched, either. The 2016 election became a landmark case before the Supreme Court regarding electoral reform. Donald Trump won the election with 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227. This totaled 531 votes, seven shy of the full college. A handful of faithless electors voted outside of their party commitments for third party candidates, such as former national security advisor Colin Powell and Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.). The state of Washington charged three rogue electors with violating state pledge laws that held electors to their commitment. After multiple rounds of appeals, Chifalo v. Washington reached the Supreme Court where the justices unanimously deemed pledge laws binding. Our nation’s highest court limited electors to act as “agents of others,” and not as “free agents” as the modern, broad definition can be interpreted. This ruling effectively clarified that if NPVIC were to take place, the elec-
torates would have to follow the decisions made by the State, ironically using the Electoral College to overcome the Electoral College. These two advancements indicate that not only does the government, at both the state and federal level, know that it is time for change, but both are willing to enact laws to remedy an unjust system. The electoral college is a problem with a solution in sight. Chifalo v. Washington’s unanimous ruling displays that even under one of the most politically contentious Supreme Courts in history, electoral college reform is not a partisan issue. These changes do not have to be limited by the “gridlocked” nature that currently defines American politics. The NPVIC is tangible legislation that can amend a broken system. A system that once worked, but now actively corrupts the framework it was built to protect. We do not have to come up with a solution when we already have one. State representation is a crucial aspect of the national government; however, it is simply more important to protect the integrity of representative democracy. The Constitution is a living document, and thus its governmental systems should be subject to evolution as well.
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
10
How was Social Media Used? Carina Li ’22 Social media is undeniably a huge influence on today’s political climate. When scrolling through Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, it is nearly impossible not to encounter political posts or even ads run by campaigns themselves. As social media becomes a more present part of our society, the amount of people, time, and money invested in internet politics have inevitably grown as well. This rapid growth has further individualized and personalized politics by allowing voters and politicians to utilize social media for specific purposes, such as activism or campaigning. While these online platforms facilitate the quick dissemination of important news, they can also perpetuate the spread of misinformation and fake news. Regardless of its positive or negative effects, the internet has revolutionized the world of politics and its influence is only growing by the day. Here’s a short list of how the internet was used this election: Social Media to Inspire Protests: Social media has served as platforms for individuals to organize protests and other political movements. In 2017, the idea for a “pro-women’s march” the day after President Donald Trump’s inauguration was first mentioned on Facebook, where it then transformed into the largest single-day protest in U.S. history. In addition to the large number of protestors from all over the country, many countries around the world hosted their own, similar “Women’s Marches’ on the same day. This global movement started from just one post—demonstrating social media’s ability to facilitate mass communication that can reach large audiences.
Instagram Activism: “Instagram activism” and other forms of social media posts to express political opinions have become increasingly popular over the last few years, especially with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement this summer. For example, the hashtag “#blackouttuesday” has over 22.1 million posts on Instagram. While many of these posts are made by teenagers and children not old enough to vote, their increased use of social media led to an accelerated spread of information and a greater public awareness for political and social issues. That said, this phenomenon bids the unavoidable spread of misinformation as well. In March, Instagram announced a review of its moderation rules in order to combat the spread of “fake news,” but the reality remains that there is no easy way to quickly identify misinformation and such posts can reach millions of people before they get taken down.
Politicians’ Social Media Use: In general, politicians have increased their personal social media presences. From the beginning of his presidency to six months in, President Donald Trump’s average amount of tweets and retweets per month went from 164 to 986—over a five-fold increase. This trend suggests that Twitter is an increasingly more important platform for Trump’s campaign and that it is a significant part of his communication with voters. The voters’ reception is questionable—a June poll found that 63 percent of voters believe Trump tweets “too frequently”—but regardless, more tweets means more voters are updated about Trump’s decisions and policies.
Social Media to Advertise and Fundraise: Spending on social media advertisements has also increased dramatically for nearly all politicians. Trump’s 2016 campaign is a prime example; Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, reported spending $100 million on Facebook advertising for this campaign. Among current Congressional campaigns, Representative Brian Mast reportedly spent $78,441 on Facebook ads—the largest reported amount for any candidate—but has also raised $3.8 million from Facebook ads encouraging donations to his campaign. In comparison, Mast’s opponent, Pam Keith, raised a mere $282,369 on her campaign through the end of July. Of that, she has spent about $15,700 on Facebook advertising. These sums can contribute significantly to the success of a candidate’s campaign, and they prove to be yet another expense of the already exhaustive process of running for public office.
FEATURES 11
Heard Under the Tent Mac Dilatush ’21 After election day, which I guess we are going to have to rename counting day or something, The First Amendment held a conversation, as did Young Republicans and Young Democrats. A considerable number of students attended, and they shared questions and opinions while, encouragingly, maintaining the kind of civil respect communities depend on. Strikingly, concerns over postelection riots quickly emerged. Lawrentians invoked memories of this summer to forecast the future and acknowledged that much of the country is already bracing for impact. As one person whispered, “the cities, they’re already boarded up.” They have a point; I live in Chicago and, trust me, no one’s been window shopping. The city looks like architects and designers are using plywood for everything. With virtual winter looming, it’s not surprising that students are worried about, or at least considering, the prospect of
whole, seemed to doubt the value of all those Instagram stories, especially given the questionable validity of much of the posts. Further, the political climate at Lawrenceville came under fire. Attendees observed that a “small but loud” contingent of very liberal students tended to drown out, or, as one student posited, “intimidate,” a larger, silent group containing both left and right leaning Lawrentians. The faculty, according to student opinion, plays a role in that—they were charged with placing “popular and loud liberals on a pedestal” and avoiding conservative voices. Student opinion is not unanimous, though, and those mild accusations should not be treated as a hard fact. Finally, students spoke about the election itself. Many revealed hope for a more charismatic, graceful presidency under Biden. Some celebrat-
more disorder. Students also raised social media’s role and important voting issues for discussion. The government’s Covid-19 response, of course, took center stage, with some students condemning it and others adopting a more ambivalent view. Some expressed optimism for a better response under Joe Biden, too. Likewise, the economy and access to abortion in states like Georgia proved rele“Many revealed hope for a vant. Statements about the economy revolved around more charismatic, graceful whether Trump’s fiscal presidency under Biden.” plans induced economic improvement or not and Biden’s proposed regulation and tax ed record voter participation and the increases. Unsurprisingly, opinions potential for a Democrat presidency on the economy were split. Multiple paired with a Republican-controlled students remarked that they received Senate. Everyone mocked the polls. information about the economy The most salient comment came and other issues from social media, from an international student. After prompting a debate about the ef- others talked about the anticipated ficacy of social media activism and “Blue Wave” and it’s failure to materidigital misinformation without suf- alize despite Democrats overwhelmficient fact checks. Students, on the ingly outspending Republicans and winning nearly every poll reported by the media, he cut through the noise. “Well,” he said, “according to Gallup, 56% of Americans say they are better off now than they were four years ago. That contrasts with all the other polls.” It also helps explain why Americans rejected progressivism, for now at least, in the House and Senate.
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
12
Disruptive Protest: Why Riots Don’t Ruin the BLM Movement Gabby Medina ’21 I am sick of people weaponizing uprising was the Boston Tea Party, Americans and destroyed private Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy in which colonial revolutionists property in protest of unjust taxes, to scrutinize Black Lives Matter destroyed private property by not in protest of unjust and punitive (BLM) protesters. While most can smashing hundreds of chests of tea murders like the BLM movement. Before and since the Boston Tea recall the non-violent tactics that and dumping them into the Boston Dr. King used, many critics of the Harbor. Most American textbooks Party, there has been a slew of other protests seem to be amnesic to the look back at the Boston Tea Party social movements that speak to plethora of other historical social fondly, portraying it as an integral the efficacy of “rioting,” from the movements that looked a lot more catalyst for the Revolutionary 1968 rebellions following Dr. King’s like St. Louis, Missouri, than Selma, War, which ultimately culminated assassination, which resulted in the Alabama. The reality is, there in the United States gaining its Fair Housing Act of 1968 (also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1968), to exists an irrefutable historical the 1969 Stonewall Riots, which precedent for disruptive protest, “There exists an irrefutable underpinned the successful not just civil disobedience, as historical precedent for modern-day Pride movement. an efficacious form of protest. The BLM protests, both One example establishing disruptive protest, not just non-violent and violent, have such a historical precedent civil disobedience, as an produced similarly staggering is the American Revolution. results in only a matter of weeks. Colonists used violent uprisings efficacious form of protest.” According to the New York to protest a variety of indignities Times, “The amount of change they felt they had suffered under British rule, often targeting independence. It is also worth noting that the protests have been able to British law enforcement agents that the “patriots” who organized produce in such a short period of with little respect for the notion and executed the Boston Tea Party time is significant. In Minneapolis, that “Red Lives Matter.” One such disguised themselves as Native the City Council pledged to dismantle its police department. In New York, lawmakers repealed a law that kept police disciplinary records secret. Cities and states across the country passed new laws banning chokeholds. Mississippi lawmakers voted to retire their state flag, which prominently includes a Confederate battle emblem.” Moreover, the suspects of Ahmaud Arbery’s murder were arrested after walking free for months, the criminal charges against Derek Chauvin (the officer who murdered
DOMESTIC 13
George Floyd) were elevated to second-degree murder, and the FBI reopened the investigation on Breonna Taylor’s murder. Beyond inciting changes to the political and criminal justice systems, the protests have also instigated social change. BLM has seen a surge in public support, with groups ranging from fraternities and sororities to Fortune 500 companies rallying behind the movement, culminating in millions of signatures on racial justice petitions and millions of dollars worth of donations to organizations that serve Black American communities. Whether people like them or not, the protests are giving rise to unprecedented and widespread engagement with the movement against police brutality. In fact, one New York Times article claims that BLM may be the largest movement in U.S. history. So, why are the protests looked down upon, especially among many right-wing political circles? Expectedly, many dissenters object to the destruction of property and violence as a means of protest. However, the hypocrisy of this standpoint is striking. As mentioned above, economic gain, meaning decreased taxes, was seen as cause enough for property destruction in the case of the Boston Tea Party. Evidently, the rhetoric of those opposed to the protesting are riddled
with contradictions. Perhaps most jarring is the tendency to judge the entire BLM movement by its most violent protesters while chiding BLM supporters for supposedly judging all police by the most violent officers. Therefore, the criticism of the destruction of property to save the lives of Black Americans is a clear double standard, and it speaks to the greater value that many Americans place on economic and political gain as compared to Black lives. Furthermore, it seems as though Black Americans face criticism
“The criticism of the destruction of property to save the lives of Black Americans is a clear double standard.” regardless of their means of protest. In 2016, heeding the advice of a U.S. military veteran, Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the national anthem before his professional football games to demonstrate his support for the BLM movement— the ultimate form of nonviolent protest. Not only did he face nationwide backlash, but the simple act of kneeling also cost him his livelihood as an NFL quarterback; he has been a free agent ever since. In addition, many people conveniently forget that Dr. King, who is today
celebrated for championing peaceful protest, died with a disapproval rating of 72 percent. Critics have historically condemned nonviolent protests as vehemently as they have the violent protests. In fact, the violence often grows out of the frustration caused by those very condemnations. The media has historically policed the temperament of Black and brown people—from the “angry black woman” stereotype to the historic comparison of Black men to monkeys—as a tactic to invalidate and silence voices of dissent from marginalized communities. Sadly, these racebased, degrading stereotypes continue to be used today. The media insists on criticizing the “riots and looting” instead of the racism; perhaps instead of giving disproportionate airtime to condemning the demonstrations, “anti-violence advocates” should focus their efforts on the police officers spraying lifethreatening rubber bullets and toxic tear gas into crowds of often peaceful protesters. After all, police brutality and the reluctance of our country to address the systemic racism that disproportionately impacts Black Americans is why the protests are happening in the first place. Until this is addressed, there will continue to be those in our society who find property destruction a viable form of protest, for in the words of Dr. King: “...
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N.I
14
Movements of Solidarity: Palestinian Liberation & Black Lives Matter Esha Akhtar ’21 On May 30, 2020, five days after the murder of George Floyd by officers in the Minneapolis Police Department, Eyad Al-Hallaq, an unarmed, autisitic 32-year-old Palestinian student was shot to death by Israeli police in Jerusalem. The officers shot eight live rounds into Hallaq’s body, before leaving him to bleed to death at the steps of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where he was walking to volunteer at a school for people with special needs. In order to justify their murder, the IDF alleged that Hallaq was “attempting to stab” Israeli soldiers. While people around the world expressed outrage and support for the Black Lives Matter movement as they took to the streets to protest the murder of Geroge Floyd, Palestinians, who for decades have suffered under Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank, drew heartbreaking parallels to Hallaq’s murder. In Palestine, artists erected murals of George Floyd and Iyad Al-Hallaq side-by-side, and chanted “Black Lives Matter and Palestinian Lives Matter.” One activist, Hadil Battrawi, expressesd how “U.S. governments have been working on portraying Black people as a burden to society, who flout the laws in a bid to condone the racist measures against them. This is the case with the Israeli government that has been painting Palestinians as terrorists worthy only of extermination,” highlighting the shared experiences of deadly state violence, systemic racism and white
supremacy. Palestinians living under occupation are familiar with a police force that exonerates soldiers and evades responsibility. Human Rights Watch, which is denied access to occupied Palestinan territories, reported last year that, “between March 30 and November 19, Israeli forces killed 189 Palestinian demonstrators on the border with Gaza, and wounded more than 5,800. Human Rights Watch, along with Israeli human rights groups, documents Israel’s other human rights and international law violations, including the demolition of houses, the expropriation of lands, and the transfer of Israeli settlers into Palestinian lands,” as well as credible reports of child incarceration and torture in Israeli prisons. These most recent events are merely a continuation of a decadeslong history of Black and Palestinian solidarity. In 2014, Palestinians were the first to express international outrage at the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. In 2016, the Movement for Black Lives in the U.S. endorsed BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), a tactic used by Palestinain activists against Israel. The group condemned U.S. complacency “in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people,” and described Israel as “an apartheid state.” Indeed, Black and Palestinian liberation are not two separate movements, but instead, inextricably intertwined by an international sys-
tem of imperialism and settler colonialism. Settler colonialism seeks to “replace the original population of a territory with a new society of settlers by exterminating or expelling the indiginous population.” While some may argue that appropriating language from the Black Lives Matter movement diminishes the unique struggle of Black Americans against a racist police state, similar to the “All Lives Matter” discourse, Palestinian activists and allies are highlighting important connections and building coalition to universal structures of oppression. In her book, Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement, longtime activist and academic Angela Davis argues for the idea of “indivisible justice,” an internationalist framework that emphasizes the importance of acknowledging that while the struggles of Black Americans are unique, they are part of a larger movement of anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist, and anti-imperialist thinking. This way of thinking is pointed towards ultimately dismantling these forces of oppression that affect marginalized populations all around the world. Similar to how the United States was founded upon a legacy of genocide of Native Americans and built by the free labor of enslaved Africans, the founder of modern-day Zionism, Theodore Herzl, conceived of Israel as a project of colonial settlement and expansion. Herzl initially approached Britain with the idea because “it was the first to recognize the need for colonial expansion,” and thus, explains that “Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be quickly and easily understood in England.” In 1902, Herzl addressed a letter to Cecil Rhodes, who had just colonized the Shona people of modern day Zimbabwe as Rhodesia, inviting him to “make history… It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen, but Jews. It is something colonial.” Israel was founded in 1948 after expelling 700,000
INTERNATIONAL 15
Palestinians from native lands and ethnically cleansing villages, an event that is referred to as “The Nakba.” Since then, America and Israel have worked hand in hand to orchestrate an oppressive regime. Currently, the United States, the world’s largest military power, is the only country in the world that does not consider Israeli settlements to be a violation of international law. As of 2019, the U.S. government has given almost $142.3 billion USD to Israel since its creation in 1948. Israel is America’s “largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II,” mostly through military and economic assistance. For the 2020 fiscal year alone, the Trump administration has requested $3.3 billion in federal military financing for Israel Since 1972, The United States has used its UN veto power on resolutions criticizing and condemning Israel’s force against Palestinian civilians 43 times, making it the most frequent user of the veto power. In fact, Israel’s most recently enacted plans to annex one-third of the West Bank was supported by Donald Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century.” It is clear that the United States unequivocally supports the Israeli government’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but Amnesty International recently published a report documenting the training of several U.S. police departments by the Israeli Defense Forces. The IDF conducts “counterterrorism” trainings, educating American police on tactics that reinforce racial profiling and militarization. In fact, officers within the Minneapolis Police Department, responsible for the death of George Floyd, were trained by the Israeli Defense Forces. In 2012, at least 100 Minneapolis police officers attended a conference jointly hosted by Israel’s Chicago consulate and the FBI, learning the same violent techniques that the Israeli military uses to terrorize occupied Palestinian ter-
ritories. Neta Golan, a Palestinian rights activist, reveals that “When I saw the picture of killer cop Derek Chauvin murdering George Floyd by leaning in on his neck with his knee as he cried for help and other cops watched, I remembered noticing when many Israeli soldiers began using this technique of leaning in on our chest and necks when we were protesting in the West Bank sometime in 2006.” The forces of oppression killing Black people in America and Palestinians in the West Bank are quite literally one and the same. Today, while celebrities like Noname and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, who was fired from his job at CNN after speaking out about Palestine at a UN conference, are joined by a growing group of Black activists spreading awareness of Palestine. Black and Palestinian liberation carries historical weight, too. Some of the most outspoken support for Palestinian freedom came from the leaders of radical Black liberation movements of the 1960s and ‘70s. Figures like Malcolm X and Huey P. Newton loudly voiced their disdain towards Israeli occupation of Palestine. In 1964, Malcolm X was one of the first African-American leaders to meet with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The Black Panther Party was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian struggle. Huey P. Newton, the group’s leader, asserted that “We support the Palestinians’ just struggle for liberation one hundred percent. We will go on doing this, and we would like for all of the progressive people of the world to join our ranks in order to make a world in which all people can live. We call for Afro-American solidarity with the Palestinian people’s struggle for national liberation and to regain all of their stolen land.” Angela Davis reminds us that for those everywhere struggling against racism and for freedom, the Palestinian people continue to serve as an inspiration because they have endured
and remained steadfast for so long, refusing to give up and accept permanent subjugation and injustice. I’m hoping today’s activists recognize how important Palestinians have been to the Black cause. We have a profound responsibility to support Palestinian struggles as well.” This is why it is an innate hypocrisy and betrayal when brands like Ben & Jerry’s are outspoken about the Black Lives Matter movement, yet continue to support the Israeli government, remaining complacent in the oppression of Palestinains despite public pressure from over 250 organizations across 20 different countries to divest from Israel. So often, legitimate critique of the Israeli government and its policies of apartheid are accused as “anti-Semitism,” effectively stifling and censoring any productive discussion of Palestinian oppression. Anti-Semitism is real. It is a force of hatred that has and continues to cause undeniable devastation to Jewish people around the globe. Yet, valid criticism of the Israeli government’s systemic, institutionalized racism is not anti-Semitism. Instead, this dangerous conflation undermines the real danger of and distracts from genuine instances of anti-Semitism. Separating the actions of the Israeli government from Jewish people as a collective is essential in order to move towards a future that recognizes the humanity of both Palestinians and Black people under a violent police state. “Our struggles are one,” is the rallying cry of activists standing in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter and Palestinian liberation movements, reflecting a deep-rooted commitment to dismantling global systems of oppression and the legacies of colonialism and imperialism.
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
16
Foreign Influence on Belarusian Protests Nushana Huq ’23
Foreign Influence Supporting the Protestors From the European Union: A massive aspect of the continuation of the pro-democracy protests in Belarus is foreign intervention and attention. The protests have been very strongly supported by the western half of the world, especially the EU, which recently redistributed the $63 million dollars previously allocated to the Belarusian government to “civil society groups” instead. Charles Micheal, one of the EU Council presidents, has claimed that “enough is enough” and that the people of Belarus must be heard by their government. There have also been many protests for democracy in Belarus all around the EU; three Baltic states have even put sanctions on President Lukashenko. Toomas Ilves, a former president of Estonia, claimed that “It certainly makes it easier to laugh at the proposition that the European Union is a democracy project if it allows the most grotesque suppression and violation of human rights on its border —the border with three EU countries— and does absolutely nothing.” Other groups are weighing in on Lukashenko as well. UN Spokesman Stéphane Dujarric, condemning the violence against protestors, urged Belarusian authorities to practice maximum restraint and respect Belarusian citizens’ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Even the Pope has criticized Belarus’ government, mentioning the need for respecting justice and rights in his address delivered on August 16. Ultimately, strong foreign support, especially from the powerful EU, has validated the protests and bolstered the participants’ fighting spirit.
From the rest of the world: Belarusian protestors have gained inspiration from other protests around the world. The Hong Kong protests, for example, have highly influenced their fight as both march for democracy, specifically to absolve police brutality. Nikita Telizhenko, a Russian journalist with the online newspaper Znak.com, was arrested amidst Belarusian post-election protests on the evening of August 10. He recalled in his article: “It seemed to me that some of the detainees had broken arms, legs and spine because at the slightest movement, they screamed in pain.” Similarly, Hong Kong protestors report similar cases of brutality, claiming that policemen were beating protestors, shooting reporters, and threatening rape. This shared aspect of both the Hong Kong and Belarusian protests has allowed Belarus to receive international attention, as the Hong Kong protests have been going on for many years and have already stirred up pro-democracy sentiment in western countries like the United States. Another big inspiration for the protestors of Belarus is the Baltic Way movement, which fights for Baltic independence. The solidarity chains of Belarusians dressed in white are reminiscent of the “human-chain” demonstration made in the anti-Soviet movement. Other countries are protesting in support of Belarus as well, including France and the United Kingdom.
FEATURES 17
After an allegedly rigged election on August 9, Alexander Lukashenko, a man often referred to as Europe’s last dictator, still controls Belarus. Consequently, protests in favor of democracy have flooded the streets across the nation. The European Union (EU) has strongly supported the protests, too, denouncing the results of the election. Russia, however, has expressed its disapproval of the protests and is posed to intervene. As Russian commentator Leonid Gozman claims, “Putin seems to dislike Lukashenko and would likely be happy to have someone else in power in Belarus, but cannot allow Lukashenko to be removed by the will of the people.” Russia has even offered to provide military aid against the protestors. As Belarus is in between two strong players with two opposite inputs, they are experiencing lots of turmoil. To get a full picture of what’s happening, the support both for and against the protests have to be examined.
Foreign Influence Against the Protestors On the other end of the spectrum, there is also strong opposition to the pro-democracy protests, particularly from Russia. On August 27, a Russian state TV declared that a reserve of Russian security forces had already been formed and would be deployed in Belarus if the protestors got “out of hand.” President Vladimir Putin’s preparations to deploy the Russian security services are only a part of the Kremlin’s ongoing intervention in Belarus. As protests expanded in the days following the August 9 presidential vote, Moscow reportedly sent planeloads of Russian TV workers to replace striking staff at Belarus state TV and lead the Lukashenko regime’s propaganda efforts. The impact of this apparent takeover is now all too evident in government messaging, with Belarusian officials including Lukashenko echoing Kremlin language and referring to pro-democracy protesters as paid foreign agents, social misfits, and Nazis. Russia seems very adamant on stopping pro-democracy protests, but why? Russia itself does not have a democracy; if Belarus protestors win, then it is fair game to say that Russia is next. Russia already faces pressure from the western half the world, so this would exert additional pressure to change the Russian government and remove Putin’s position of power. That being said, the Russian government will do everything they can to avoid this pressure.
Implications of the Belarusian Protests
Whether you support the movement or not, everyone can agree that the Belarusian government is under stress. There are protestors with international support on one side, and Russia, who is against the pro-democracy movement, on the other; by all counts, a lot of pressure is being put on the Belarusian government, and it seems that it is a loss for them one way or another. All in all, it is evident that there are many possible outcomes of these protests, and it is definitely hard to guess what the future holds for the people and government of Belarus.
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
18
Playing Chess Against a Wrestler Yan Tsenter ’23 Have you ever tried to play chess with someone who knows only wrestling? Have you ever tried to reason with someone who only knows violence? Have you ever abided by principles while fighting someone who doesn’t have any? For 26 years, that’s exactly what the people of Belarus tried to do. We have attempted to fight fire with reason, to respond to violence with peace, and to fight oppression with freedom. For 26 years, the president of Belarus has made every effort to do the opposite. To every shred of reason he has responded with fire, to every sign of peace he has subjugated with violence, to every sprout of freedom he has coiled the people with a skein of terror. Alexander Lukashenko, the acting president, is now serving his sixth term in office. This sentence even sounds wrong. You would think that “sixth term” and “president” should not belong in the same sentence, but yet this is the reality that the Belarusian people face. Unfortunately this formality is among the lesser sorrows. Throughout his presidency, Lukashenko has time and time again proved that he is not fit for the job and in fact never has been. Decades ago, even before his presidency, Lukashenko was diagnosed by a psychiatrist with a mental disorder called “mosaic psychopathy.” The symptoms of this disorder are numerous but what is unsurprising is that almost every single one of them applies to the dictator. “Suspicion, indifference to the feelings of other people, a tendency to manipulate them, a low tolerance for frustration and a low threshold of aggressive
behavior” are among the most visible qualities in his presidency and are also among the most damaging to those affected by his rule. The Belarusian government is not some invisible hand that simply makes the life of the people worse by taxing them or not doing their job properly, the reality is far more wretched. Behind the facade of another protesting nation, unimaginable crimes against citizens take place in Belarus on a daily basis. Recently an employee from my father’s company was beaten by the police after being arrested at a peaceful protest. He barely had a place on his body without severe bruising or a bone without some kind of fracture. After making a partial recovery he decided to file a criminal action lawsuit in order to get some sort of justice and reparation. However, not only was his lawsuit declined, another lawsuit was filed against him with charges identical to the ones he had filed. I mention this case not to point out a unique occurrence that happened by mere misfortune, but to point out one case among tens of thousands. Since the beginning of the protests on August 9, more than 20 thousand people have been arrested, and more than two thousand reports of torture have been registered by human rights centers across Belarus. And yet, not a single criminal case has been opened against the abusers. In order to keep himself in power Alexander Lukashenko, Europe’s last dictator, uses all of the tools available to him, especially the judicial system. Since the beginning of mass arrests a great number of valiant judges have resigned in response
to being forced to prosecute people who were arrested during protests or who stand in opposition to the government. Now almost every single judge in the country is a government puppet who is either persuaded into working for the government with the use of incredibly abundant material compensation or incredibly cruel ultimatums which leave them with no choice but to follow orders. Apparently in addition to valiant judges, lawyers or any kind of representation for the defendants have also been excluded from the Belarusian judicial system, leaving thousands of innocent people at the mercy of the politically and morally corrupt judicial system officials. Belarusian university students have been among the loudest and most active protestors, which makes them a target of the regime’s repressions. In the past months students protesting in front of their universities have been arrested and expelled from their places of study for participating in the demonstrations. Many of those who have been expelled have also been sent to serve in the army as punishment and also in an attempt to move protesters further away from the capital. One thing has become painfully clear in the past several months of the ongoing revolution, and it is that Europe’s last dictator does not have any principles and will not stop at anything to keep himself in power. It is difficult to look into the future with optimism when so much remains unclear, it is always easier to think about events in retrospect. Yet Belarusian people are among the most resilient and optimistic people that I have ever met, and that gives me hope and vision of a better, brighter future. A future without violence, a future without oppression, and a future with the freedom of speech.
FEATURES 19
Abe’s Legacy: A Mixed Bag Victoria Gong ’21 Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the longest-serving prime minister in the history of modern Japan, announced his resignation earlier this year. As the youngest post-World War II prime minister, he supported the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and ran for Prime Minister twice. When elected in 2006, Abe oversaw the LDP’s defeat in the House of Councillors election after suffering from ulcerative colitis. Despite this, Abe was reelected after the 2011 tsunami. A conservative nationalist, he prioritized economic recovery and defense over precarious international issues. While Abenomics was widely considered a success prior to 2017, Abe’s more recent nationalist foreign relations policies hindered Japan’s development, ultimately overshadowing Japan’s economic success. The Abenomics approach consisted of “three arrows”: increase government spending on fiscal stimulus, lower interest rates from the Bank of Japan, and institute structural reforms. In addition to domestic impacts like increasing Japan’s inflation rate closer to the targeted two percent and bringing more women into the workforce, Abe’s policies had strong international implications— they challenged China’s status as the economic powerhouse of Southeast Asia while reducing Japan’s reliance on the U.S. The increasing value of the Japanese Yen and the over 50-percent stock market increase was Japan’s first sign of growth in decades. By encouraging private investment in businesses, Abe appeared to have single-handedly reconstructed the Japanese economy. However, Abe’s failure to confront Japan’s war crimes strained relations with East Asian nations. In July 2014, Abe’s cabinet proposed a “controversial
reinterpretation” of Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution which permitted Japan to use force to aid allies under attack. Reuters correspondent Linda Sieg describes the decision as originating from “Japan’s U.S.-drafted constitution, [which] is seen by conservatives as a humiliating symbol of defeat but by others as a brake on entanglement in foreign conflicts.” While Abe pushed for this bill to pass, public support remained low, with the Nikkei business newspaper reporting that “50 percent of voters were against overturning the ban on collective self-defence.” The latest plan calls for a five-year program allocating ¥25.5 trillion ($233.7 billion) in spending on new military equipment, a 6.4 percent rise over the previous five years and a clear shift towards strengthening and modernizing the country’s forces independent of foriegn aid. Abe’s Japan-centric approach to foreign relations with China, namely on the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands in 2012, caused a strong reaction from the Chinese who began boycotting Japanese goods. China and Japan had fought over the Senkaku Islands since they had been “returned” to China after World War II; Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara wanted to “use public funds to buy the islands,” causing a resurgence of anti-Japanese sentiment. In major Chinese cities, citizens vandalized the Japanese embassies and paraded with destroyed Japanese products. Bloomberg claims that Toyota, Nissan and Honda are “bracing” for what could be a “bigger crisis… than last year’s tsunami.” China’s Passenger Car Association predicted that Japanese car brands could lose a seven-year lead over German nameplates with the boycott of goods. Although tensions eased
after a conciliatory meeting between Abe and President Xi Jinping in 2014, the harm done to the Japanese economy remains a significant issue. Meanwhile, Japan’s unresolved war debts with South Korea added to its economic ruin. On October 30, 2018, the Korean Supreme Court issued a landmark verdict that found Japan’s Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal guilty of “exploiting forced labor under colonial rule.” The court ordered the company to pay $88,700 to the four South Korean victims involved. However, Japan held the stance that all debts had been settled in the postwar contract made between the two nations in 1965. The postwar reparations were previously questioned, especially with regards to individual compensation for South Korean “comfort women,” who were forcibly sent as prostitutes for Japanese soldiers. In response to Korea’s claims for reparations, Abe launched a trade war that limited Japanese exports to Korea, specifically liquid hydrogen fluoride, a material essential for Korea’s tech supply chain. In response, Koreans began boycotting Japanese goods in general. In 2020, Abe’s handling of Covid-19 deepened the nation’s debt. Washington Post correspondent William Pesek addresses Abe’s decision to ignore experts and go ahead with a domestic tourism push, calling it proof that “the Nikkei Stock Average has priority over public safety.” According to a CNBC report, out of the respondents to a Nikkei/Tokyo TV survey, 55 percent disapproved of the government’s response to the pandemic. The Tokyo 2020 Olympics was supposed to be a major boost to the Prime Minister’s public image, but its postponement due to Covid-19 tanked national morale. Subsequently, Abe’s approval ratings reached a new low, 30 percent. On August 28, Abe resigned after suffering from ulcerative colitis. His legacy will be muddled—successful economic reforms, but detrimental foreign policy.
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
20
China in the 2020 Election Gian Beritela ’22 “If Biden wins, China wins,” according to our famously unreliable president, Donald J. Trump. In an era where China is admittedly very intimidating, with a very powerful centralized government, military, and manufacturing industry, it is extremely important for the American voter to be aware of the United States’ foreign policy regarding the China. Its increasingly more aggressive imperialistic shift has ramped up its assault on Hong Kong’s sovereignty and pushed the country into a trade war with the United States. Joe Biden and Donald Trump have famously different opinions on the course of action concerning China, and, at the time of the election, the two candidates’ proposed policies could dramatically modify America’s foreign policy. Throughout this term, Trump has consistently challenged China’s encroachment while his Democratic counterpart has failed to outline any concrete plan or back up his words with any substantial action. Though not without changes of heart, the United States have generally supported the sovereignty of Taiwan going back almost one hundred
years. Since stepping into office, the Trump administration has clearly demonstrated a desire to maintain support for Taiwan over the past four years, supporting the island through hundreds of pieces of legislature, most of which are deprecatory of Beijing and Mainland China. For example, seven separate arms deals, the Taiwan Travel Act, TAIPEI Act, and Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, have all been passed by the Trump administration. These acts encourage visitation by high-level officials, United States presence in the Formosa Strait, and increased integration into international societies. Congress is also in the process of signing a bilateral free-trade agreement with Taiwan, once again in an attempt to counteract China, as it is believed that Taiwan will lose economic influence to China without diversifying international trade. Throughout his campaign, Trump projected similar support of Taiwan, strengthening the popular view that he is the most pro-Taiwan president ever. There is much less to say, how-
ever, about the President-elect Joe Biden, as he has spent forty-seven years in politics without really taking any strong stances at all. In previous instances where China came up, he has merely exhibited a slight preference towards supporting engagement with Mainland China. As of right now, it seems that Joe Biden plans to wane America’s influence in Taiwan. As a Taiwanese citizen this pivot should be very troubling, since they have since relied on the United States as a security against China. Though Biden has been supportive of the arms deals and the Taiwan Relations Act, he has also been an opponent of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. In the past, Biden has been very critical of Trump’s trade war with China, which does not necessarily bode well for the prospects of the free-trade agreement with Taiwan. In fact, as recently as 2019, “Biden denied that China was an economic competitor,” which, for the American citizen, could be dangerous. Ending the trade war might benefit Americans in the short term, but it ignores the very real threat that China poses, whether it’s the aggression in the South China sea, trade imbalances with the United States, or the theft of intellectual property. As the new presidentelect, Biden plans to deviate from Trump’s aggressive foreign policy regarding China’s regional expansion, opting for a much more passive and lacks any firm plan for action. Though both Trump and Biden
“Biden continues the trend of adopting a more passive stance with China.” have dramatically shifted their stance on Hong Kong after the passing of the National Security Bill, the latter continues the trend of adopting a more passive stance with China. The law increases government access
INTERNATIONAL 21
to online information, establishes direct mainland policing prescence in the City, albeit for limited occasions, labels more actions as terrorism, and other policies that grant the Central Government more influence. Democracy is being threatened in Hong Kong, and many Hong Kong citizens were hopeful that Donald Trump was going to get re-elected, in part due to his ‘Tough on China’ policies, and in part due to lack of faith in Biden to do the same. A month before this was passed, Trump issued an executive order that would place sanctions of Chinese companies that undermine Hong Kong authority. One year ago, The House of Representatives introduced an almost unanimous, bipartisan bill that supposedly protects human rights and democracy in Hong Kong, with the appropriate title of “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.” Though this still leaves much to be desired in light of the National Security Law, in general, Hongkongers see Donald Trump as their last hope for democracy, wishing for him to continue and ramp up his anti-China stances. In a relatively bombastic fashion, Biden continues to say that he will be anti-China, yet has only gone as far as to call Xi Jinping a “thug.” Not once has he actually revealed what he plans to do, which, for both American and Hong Kongese citizens, is extremely worrying. Other countries in East Asia believe that Biden will not be tough on China. There is little to no information on Biden’s policy on China on his website, nor has China ever been the topic of any of his main points. Nobody has any reason to believe that Biden will not let China walk all over him and our allies. Though Hong Kong’s internal policy might seem beyond the United States’ realm of control, China threatens Hong Kong and its free markets, relative autonomy, and most importantly, its democracy. Biden seemingly does not plan to stop Hong Kongers from the potential loss of this sacred right.
Despite this grim picture, Biden has shown willingness to control China through further trade engagement. Under Trump, America and China are inching closer and closer to entering a new cold war. With Trump having rejected Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal signed in 2015 with twelve other pacific countries, and having implemented high tariffs, Trump is clearly very abrasive regarding China and trade. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have labeled the trade war as a failure, with Harris backing up her claims using false unemployment statistics like the supposed 300,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. While the tariffs can be expected to be removed, Biden will launch a separate campaign to promote American industry, projected to cut out major Chinese suppliers. Biden and the Senate are planning on pushing through this 350 million dollar bill in an attempt to counter China. This bill will provide millions in military funding in the South China Sea, in order to ensure funding for future alliances. It will also pressure Beijing on human rights abuses against the Uighur Muslims. Relating to trade, this bill will be expected to subsidize American manufacturing, in the silicon semiconductor industry for example, trying to undercut Chinese industry. Seemingly counterproductive to the goals out-
lined via this bill, Biden is expected to revitalize the World Trade Organization, the very same entity that both Obama and Trump thought to be too lenient on China. The WTO certainly has the power to make China comply, but Biden suggested that he will be assertive in making sure China halts its “unfair” trade practices. In addition, Biden could re-enter the TPP, this time bringing China with him, once again in an attempt to control China. Overall, Biden seeks to revitalize trade with China while using that trade as a mechanism for positive change. So far, Biden has mostly been just talk, while Trump has proved that he is willing to take some sort of action, though it is debatable whether or not he succeeded in making change. Despite Biden having some policies to address the growing threat of China, he will most likely remain passive, hoping to be much more friendly with the Eastern competitor. Whether we want to accept it or not, China is a rising power attempting to challenge the United States’ unilateral control over international affairs. This past election has decided that going forward, the United States will adopt a cooperative stance under the Biden administration, for better or for worse.
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
22
The International Reputation of the United States Amelie Wickham ’22 Over the past few years, and especially the past few months, the international reputation of the United States has taken a hard downfall. Current President Donald Trump holds a significant portion of the responsibility for this, as his policies, both national and international, have come to represent America’s ignorance in foreign affairs. His dealings with covid-19, the current racial movements, environment, and human rights, in general, have cost him respect from the majority of other countries and their citizens. Despite all this, his ratings in the U.S. remain surprisingly high. The statistical relationship between Donald Trump and the international reputation of the United States is somewhat there, but Trump’s international ratings have decreased significantly, while the international ratings of the United States has only decreased
by a small fragment of that. Despite Trump’s slight impact on U.S. ratings, they do not seem to have dropped significantly, meaning there could be a rebound in the international reputation of the United States soon, as Joe Biden assumes the position in the coming year. “Roughly threein-four or more lack confidence in Trump in Germany, Sweden, France, Spain, and the Netherlands,” a horrifyingly low percentage of support for the president of one of the largest superpower countries. President Trump’s dissapointing leadership over the past few months, especially in terms of his handing of the racial injustice that has been recently highlighted after the murder of George Floyd,
and his response to covid-19 have likely made a strong impact on the decline of his international reputation. With covid-19, he first refused to acknowledge the severity of the virus or encourage mask wearing, and then proceeded to promote unsafe medical practices, including injecting bleach into one’s veins, which he later claimed to be satire. Regardless of his intentions, what he says to his followers and to America have impacts that he refuses to think about, and other countries see this very clearly. For Donald Trump to not denounce white supremacy by telling the “ Proud Boys [to] stand back and stand by.” Trump’s refusal to take responsibility for his impact on the human rights condition in America plays into other countries’ views
“Alongside Trump, the covid-19 response of the United States, in general, has made a mockery of the United States in the eyes of most Western and East Asian countries...” on him and America in general. Alongside Trump, the covid-19 response of the United States, in general, has made a mockery of the United States in the eyes of most Western and East Asian countries, with ratings of the U.S. covid-19 response lower than almost any other country. The media seems to promote the idea that part of this reaction is due to Trump’s poor medical advice, and the rest is due to the unique brand of American individuality that makes people refuse to put on a mask right now. Because many seem to think that to put on a mask is a violation of their personal rights, they refuse to protect the safety of others in their vicinity, spiking covid-19 cases and raising the U.S.’s global standing in numbers of cases significantly. U.S. mask wearing ratings are actually currently higher than most other Eu-
DOMESTIC 23
ropean countries as well as Canada currently rating at a national high of 65% of people wearing masks- there are also significantly more cases per capita. This forms a significant and confusing contradiction, as the mask wearing and numbers of cases do not appear to correspond. On one hand, Americans had a shockingly slow response to mask wearing at the beginning of the pandemic, which in turn can be held partially responsible for the high cases that we are currently seeing. Much of this poor response can be accredited to Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the severity of the pandemic, in what he calls an effort to protect the people, but truly just resulted in more deaths and panic than if he had addressed the issue early on. While the U.S. is doing a better job in its handling of the pandemic right now, the reputation that is generally dis-
cussed internationally, especially in the media, was established early on. Covid-19 and the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement have given much opportunity to the United States administration to take charge and lead the world as a superpower in racial and viral conflict. Despite this clear opportunity to lead, the U.S. has not taken advantage of this, and instead, dropped in global standings and leadership. However, it must be reiterated that the election marks a time of change. With a president that will take charge in terms of global environment and covid-19 along with empowering minority voices in order to improve the racial state of America, international ratings could increase significantly. If we, as a country, can see improvements in those three areas, not only will the international reputation of the United States improve sig-
nificantly, but we’ll also change the internal dynamic of the country. While the reputation of the U.S. is currently dropping, even if the next presidency mirrors the current one— and if Joe Biden’s speech on November 7, 2020 is any indication, it will not—the reputation will inevitably improve again. To experience such a poorly perceived president and still have only the standing of that specific president drop in national approval rankings rather than the whole country implies that taking down the international reputation of the U.S. in general would require a much worse situation. The future of the international standing of the U.S. will improve under a more globally effective administration, bringing hope to the maintained international power of the United States amongst the other global superpower countries, both economically and socially.
“Covid-19 and the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement have given much opportunity to the United States administration to take charge and lead the world as a superpower in racial and viral conflict. Despite this clear opportunity to lead, the U.S. has not taken advantage of this, and instead, dropped in global standings and leadership.” NOVEMBER 2020 24
ISSUE N. I
The Case for Third-Party Voting Gian Beritela ’22
For the vast majority of the existence of the United States of America, presidential elections have been largely limited to a duel between whichever political parties dominated the country at the time. For over 100 years, this battle has been between Democrats and Republicans. Rather than working to improve their candidate’s policies, it appears that these parties have deteriorated in quality, leading to the rise of third parties. Though third parties theoretically account for more voices, and therefore should garner votes, voting for these alternative parties is taboo when it ought not to be. To begin the argument in favor of third parties, it must first be outlined that the two parties that currently occupy a duopoly over
the American government, are, in theory, worse options, in terms of domestic and foreign policy. If one would prefer federally funded university education for all, one would have theoretically sided with Howie Hawkins from the Green Party, as he supports single-payer four-year college education, rather than Biden, who supports this idea, but for middle to low-income families. For economically right-wing individuals who hope to decrease the military budget, one would think that they would have aligned with Jo Jorgensen, from the Libertarian Party, rather than Donald Trump, who hopes instead to increase this very budget. These are examples of
the smaller party disagreeing with the larger, making the assumption first of all, that based on policy, a libertarian would sooner vote for a Republican over a Democrat, and a green would sooner vote for a Democrat over Republican. For argument’s sake, the only third parties discussed will be the Green and the Libertarian parties. Though one could consider the third parties to be further economically right or left than the Democratic or Republican Parties, there are many social issues that the third parties agree on, while the larger parties maintain a different stance. I am not here to tell you why and how America’s two most popular presidential candidates, Biden and President Trump, were both less than ideal options; this has been a recently popular opinion to most voters. What’s fairly unpopular, however, is the rejection of the Republican and Democratic nominees, in favor of a third party candidate. The most common argument against voting for a third party is that voting for a candidate who will most likely not end up winning is a waste of one’s voice. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a wasted vote. Voting is one of the only ways an individual in our society can have his or her say in how said society is governed— one of the only ways to have his or her voice heard. One should theo-
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a wasted vote.” retically then vote for the candidate with whom most of one’s values align, including third party candidates. While there will never be a perfect candidate, there are better
DOMESTIC 25
options than our mainstream parties. By all means, if the Republicans or Democrats truly represent an individual, they should vote for them. However, if they do not and said individual still casts a ballot for them, one abandons their personal principles, silences themselves, and perpetuates the status quo of the duopoly that most are fed up with. By voting for the ‘lesser of two evils,’ one isn’t voting for the candidate that best represents them. In 2012, the Democrats and the Republicans combined for 98 percent of the vote. In 2016, they combined for a similar 94 percent of the total vote. If one votes for either candidate, these parties will only gain more power, which only perpetuates the impulse to not vote for a third-party candidate. Admittedly, a form of ranked choice voting would ideally be implemented, so that one wouldn’t vote for the lesser of two evils at all, but such a thing is currently beyond a citizen’s power to bring about. A reasonably popular argument against third party voting states that it is a tool by which constituents cast a vote “against” a certain candidate, rather than for any. There is a widespread belief that if one votes third party, then that vote in particular instead supports either the Democrat or Republican
candidate by removing a vote from the pool that could have gone to his/her competitor. As one could suspect, the candidate to be voted against changes in various iterations of this argument, depending on who may be maintaining this stance. There are two huge counter-points to this fragile rationalization. People are still not voting—in 2016, 61.4 percent of the citizen voting-age population reported voting, “a number not statistically different from the 61.8 percent who reported voting in 2012.” Why attack the small Green or Libertarian party voters, while almost 40 percent of eligible voters don’t vote at all? Does not voting hurt your candidate just as much as voting third party? In addition, voting Green does, in fact, not mean a vote for Trump, but quite literally means a vote for Howie Hawkins. Saying that ‘a vote for Jo Jorgensen is a vote for Trump,’ or vice versa, is a one-dimensional, fearmongering, and uneducated take. The other counterargument is that one’s vote might not matter, in terms of who will be receiving electoral votes, at all, depending on what state one lives in. In 2016, Hillary Clinton received upwards of 60 percent of the vote in Maryland. The state perpetually votes blue, with no indication that such
a trend will stop. Why would a vote for anyone else ever matter? Especially if one was not going to vote at all anyway, voting for a third party has virtually no effect on the results of the election (though the same can’t be said for policy changes of those candidates). In a swing state, a vote matters much, much more, and an individual should probably be more prudent with theirs, but in any state where the result has practically been decided already, it doesn’t matter who won your particular vote. Choosing to vote for a third party in a safe state has a larger impact on how American voting functions. By choosing to vote for the Libertarian Party, for example, one contributes to its percentage of the popular vote, which is crucially important, since once a party receives five percent of the vote, it becomes eligible for federal funding, allowing for more campaigning, more publicity, and greater power for this third party. Electoral votes do not count toward this five percent total, therefore, one can easily see how, especially in a safe state, one can make a vote count more by voting third party. By aligning oneself with a party that best represents oneself, one can morally vote, contribute in several ways to their party’s success and power, continue to fight against the duopoly the Democrats and Republicans hold over our country, and change the way we vote four years later. When casting your ballot in subsequent elections, vote for whichever party actually represents you, even—or especially—if that means voting for a third party.
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
26
T h e N u a n c e o f Po l i c y // Bailley Georgieva ’23 In the past couple of years, criminal justice reform has sparked intense debate across the U.S. In general, the Democratic Party believes that there is a need to “overhaul the criminal justice system from top to bottom.” On the other hand, Republicans tend to promote a society of “law and order” and believe in a set society of strict laws. While there is an evident split between the two parties, voters’ geography plays a large role in determining whether or not one believes that the criminal justice system should change. This distinction generally rests on the crime rate and types of crime in a specific area. For example, New Mexico, a historically blue state, has one of the highest crime rates in the country. As a result, Democratic voters who live in there tend to adopt more Republican-leaning ideals with the respect to criminal justice reform.
Criminal Justice Reform Immigration The American dream of self-determination and success has driven immigrants to the United States since its foundation, but as society developed, public opinion regarding the introduction of new citizens has split radically. The Republican National Committee (GOP) has worked to strengthen United States’ borders because they believe that illegal immigration will hurt the economy and take jobs away from Americans. Democratic candidates generally support open immigration and an easier path to citizenship. Even within the Democratic National Committee (DNC), though, there exists a spectrum of approaches to regulating immigration. For example, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren support the temporary “freeze” of deportations, while Michael Bloomberg places greater emphasis on making immigration courts more effective. Since immigration reform is a multifaceted issue, there is no one solution. The parties are clearly in the midst of developing resolutions both within themselves and between one another, and less common ground means more room for diverse perspectives.
FEATURES 27
In the United States, political gridlock plagues federal politics, as an entrenched two-party system regulates the legislative bodies that govern what is supposed to be a true representative democracy. But beyond the Republican and Democratic parties, regional diversity has also generated incredibly polarizing contention within these political factions. Not all voters follow their affiliate party’s position blindly, as personal convictions continue to shape individual political alignment and people formulate their own nuanced perspectives on crucial issues—namely criminal justice reform, immigration, minimum wage, and gun control.
While the Democratic party has attempted to raise the minimum wage to $15, Republicans have repeatedly slammed this idea. The Republican party believes that a raise in the minimum wage would boost wages for millions of Americans, but would reduce business income, leading to potentially detrimental effects on the United States economy.. Jo Jorgenson, the 2020 Liberatarian presidential candidate, opposes raising the minimum wage and instead, endorses the idea to eliminate all wage standards. Therefore, a candidate’s stance on a certain topic need not necessarily relate to that of their affiliated party, as evidenced by Jorgenson’s belief on the minimum wage issue.
Minimum Wage Gun Control After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, gun control took a new, divisive role in sparking controversy and disagreement among politicians. The Second Amendment grants Americans the right to bear arms, but with the development of new, destructive firearm technology, some wonder when the government should put the security of its citizens before the basic liberties granted to them. Akin to immigration, the multdimensional issue begets a host of follow-up questions and hypotheticals for policymakers to answer and voters to debate. Some dislike common access to power, a foreign concept to our founding fathers, while others believe it is their right to protect themselves in the name of self defense. But With the introduction of convolutions like hunting laws, private security firms, and background checks, the landscape behind this issue becomes even more nuanced. In the recent past, President Donald Trump repealed former President Barack Obama’s bill to limit firearm distribution to those with diagnosed mental illnesses. This relatively moderate reform was created in reaction to the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. By pushing for more conservative policy, the President ultimately lost the votes of victims who were affected by not only this specific tragedy, but also by the many other school shootings and rampant cases of gun violence across the U.S.
NOVEMBER 2020
ISSUE N. I
28
Pop Perspective: Election 2020
Have you voted? Not Eligible
No
Yes
83%
9%
8%
Yes Have you ever attended a peaceful/lawful protest?
Prefer not to answer No, but it is something that I might do No, and it is something I will never do
Political Views on Campus
FEATURES 29
How much should the economy be regulated?
What issues are most important to you? The Economy Foreign Policy Race-Related Issues Healthcare Other
Less
More
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the least involved and 5 being the most, how pervasive should the government be in the lives of ordinary Americans?
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
30
Another Disaster Amid the Pandemic: Covid-19 Stimulus Funds Ashley Wang ’23 As covid-19 continues to spread across the United States, it leaves behind a trail of financial ruin, plunging the country into an economic recession. Countless small businesses have been forced to close due to social distancing measures and state-ordered lockdowns. Meanwhile, millions of workers have been left jobless, with unemployment numbers rising higher in the first two months of the pandemic than the two years of the 2008 Great Recession. In response to this growing economic crisis, the federal government passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act on March 27, an economic stimulus package unprecedented in both size and scope. Totaling $2.2 trillion, it included direct payment checks sent to each household, the creation of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), and aid for large corporations. Aneta Markowska, chief financial economist for the investment bank Jefferies, described this aggressive legislative response as “massive, but...a very short-term offset to what is likely to be a long-term problem.” While Democrats and Republicans continue debating the next economic stimulus bill, the government needs to maintain its economic support. People are just beginning to recover from the losses caused by covid-19, so it would be impetuous for the government to pull back financial benefits now. Further, although the CARES Act was effective in reviving the economy for a
lowed companies to apply for lowinterest loans, only 26 percent of eligible small businesses received aid before the money was completely spent. Even though the government later added an additional $320 billion to the program, businesses in certain states received disproportionately more funding than others. During the first 13 days of the PPP, firms in Nebraska received enough money to cover 81 percent of their payrolls; New York, which had a particularly high number of covid-19 cases in April, only received enough to cover 40 percent. Additionally, banks served “clients as they came to [them],” operating on a first come, first serve basis. Since larger companies were better equipped to complete the necessary paperwork, they were able to receive aid sooner than small struggling businesses, the intended beneficiaries of the program. If the government is devoting ten percent of the nation’s GDP and a vast amount of taxpayer resources to administer aid, it should at least make sure to reduce the number of loopholes in its legislation. This money should not have been going into public companies and the pockets of shareholders, especially when there were smaller companies that needed it more. In addition to the PPP, stimulus checks were also distributed ineffectively. Many lower-income households received federal stimulus payments after middle-class families did, and they tended to have less information about available aid. In extreme cases, some household’s in-
few months, certain loopholes in the bill decreased its effectiveness. In order to drive economic recovery in the long-term, it is imperative for the government to streamline the stimulus fund distribution process and to invest in public health efforts to restore consumer confidence. Since the CARES Act was enacted, the economy has emerged in much better shape than economists’ initial predictions. As of October 2020, civilian unemployment rates were at 6.9 percent, significantly lower than the 14.7 percent in April. Because of federal aid and a general decrease in spending, households were able to save more in the spring. Right after the $1200 payments were sent out on April 15, the personal saving rate rose to 33.7 percent, an all-time high. Although total spending by all consumers remains 3.8 percent less than it was in January 2020, it is still much higher than the 33.7 percent difference in April. Clearly, these measures have allowed people to “The execution of the CARES Act stay afloat during the pandemic by providing still lacked suffience attention to necessary financial asdetail in its design and adminissistance to all families tration.” and additional benefits to the unemployed. comes were too low to even register Although this fiscal policy has with the IRS, which prevented them mitigated some economic damage, from receiving the stimulus checks the execution of the CARES Act still on time. As payment distribution was lacked sufficient attention to detail in based on each household’s tax reits design and administration. Under turns, the most vulnerable families in the Payment Protection Program’s America were unable to receive aid to initial $349 billion budget, which al- afford basic necessities at the height
DOMESTIC 31
of the pandemic. Though seemingly minor, these flaws in the distribution of stimulus funds show that the government focused on reducing administrative effort, instead on distributing funds according to need. Regardless of the imperfections in the first round of stimulus funds, it is still absolutely necessary for Congress to pass the next coronavirus aid bill. While the CARES Act supported many families during the height of the pandemic, the $1200 checks simply cannot last most of the families through the fall. Furthermore, in most states, workers qualify for a maximum of 26 weeks of unemployment payments, so the masses of workers who lost their jobs early in the crisis have already begun to see their benefits expire. While the Democrat-led House passed a $3 trillion package that would extend benefits, it still stands little chance of becoming law, as it is facing fierce Republican opposition. Republicans argue that $3 trillion is too high of a number as the economy is already starting to reopen, and stimulus checks might serve as a disincentive from working. But during abnormal times, stimulus checks are more of a saving grace than a deterrence, since the pullback in government assistance could cause a new round of layoffs. For people working paycheck-to-paycheck, even one to two weeks without assistance could throw their lives off balance.
In the past few months, the United States has been in the process of an economic rebound, but it needs to continue this positive trend. Allowing the economy to stall right now could have longer-term impacts on the economy than one might think— the current trend of decreasing consumer spending can result in a GDP smaller than it was during the Great Recession. If federal aid is suddenly withdrawn before a broad recovery in economic and employment growth, the primary beneficiaries of the stimulus checks and PPP can fall back into joblessness and poverty. By looking back to 2008, we can predict some of the risks that could occur from the lack of another round of stimulus funding. When Obama could not afford further support for largerscale stimulus packages, the job of managing economic recovery was handed over to the Federal Reserve. The result was a painfully slow recovery, with the harm falling disproportionately on low-income families. Not only does Congress need to pass a more air-tight and fairer stimulus package soon, they also have to streamline the administrative process to deliver this money as efficiently as possible to the people in need. President-election Joe Biden has already proposed the Emergency Action Plan to Save the Economy, which draws from certain aspects of the Cares Act. Biden plans
to continue sending direct stimulus checks—similar to the $1,200 checks sent to over 160 million Americans in April—although the amount has not been specified. According to Biden’s campaign website, these checks were simply a “one-off” and believes “more must be done.” In order to expand on these stimulus payments, Biden aims to provide additional checks to families when necessary, forgive a minimum of $10,000 in federal student loans per person, and increase Social Security checks by $200 per month, among other initiatives. While both the CARES Act and Biden’s plan include several effective measures, the government also needs to consistently increase spending on public health and provide more comprehensive social protection systems. These will be much more durable in protecting workers and citizens by acting as automatic stabilizers in the event of future crises. The current crisis should be used as an opportunity to address the inadequacy of our current social protection systems and expand existing programmes, in order to truly protect citizens from future economic shock.
NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE N. I
32
Endnotes #SettleForBiden (3-4)
Subramanian, Courtney, and Jordan Culver. “Donald Trump sidesteps call to condemn white supremacists — and the Proud Boys were ‘extremely excited’ about it.” USA Today. Last modified September 29, 2020. Accessed October 1, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/29/trump-debate-white-supremacists-stand-back-stand-by/3583339001/. USA TODAY Staff. “Read the full transcript from the first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.” USA Today. Last modified September 30, 2020. Accessed October 1, 2020. https://www. usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/30/presidential-debate-read-full-transcript-first-debate/3587462001/. Ax, Joseph, Eclizabeth Culliford, Timothy Gardner, Ted Hesson, Trevor Hunnicutt, Jason Lange, Simon Lewis, Michael Martina, Jeff Mason, Valerie Volcovici, and John Whitesides. “Where Biden and Trump stand on key issues.” Edited by Soyoung Kim. Reuters Graphics. Last modified July 8, 2020. Accessed September 26, 2020. https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/POLICY/ygdpzwarjvw/. Richardson, Valerie. “’Settle for Biden’ campaign slogan catches on as Democrats seek votes of apathetic leftists.” The WashintonTimes. Last modified September 14, 2020. Accessed September 26, 2020. https:// www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/14/settle-biden-campaign-slogan-catches-democrats-see/.
Kamala Harris Profile (5-6)
Bazelon, Lara. ‘Opinion | Kamala Harris Was Not a “Progressive Prosecutor”’. The New York Times, 17 January 2019, sec. Opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html. Willon, Phil. ‘Kamala Harris Should Take Bolder Action on Police Shootings, Civil Rights Advocates Say’. Los Angeles Times, 18 January 2016. https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-harris-police-shootings-20160118-story.html. The Appeal. ‘Kamala Harris’s Criminal Justice Record Killed Her Presidential Run’. Accessed 27 September 2020. https://theappeal.org/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-record-killed-her-presidential-run/. Herndon, Astead W. ‘“Trust Me”: Kamala Harris Makes Big Play on Criminal Justice Reform’. The New York Times, 20 November 2019, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html. USA TODAY. ‘Social Media Lights up after Kamala Harris Questions Jeff Sessions’. Accessed 28 September 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/13/social-media-lights-up-after-kamala-harris-questions-jeffsessions/102824106/. Astor, Maggie, and Sydney Ember. ‘What to Know About Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s V.P. Choice’. The New York Times, 19 August 2020, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-bio.html. ‘Senator Harris Joins Colleagues in Support of $15 Minimum Wage Bill | U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California’. Accessed 28 September 2020. https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-harris-joins-colleagues-in-supportof-15-minimum-wage-bill. Goldmacher, Shane, Adam Nagourney, and Jennifer Medina. ‘The Kamala Harris Pick: Geographic Balance Takes Back Seat to Gender, Race’. The New York Times, 13 August 2020, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/ harris-biden-geography-balance.html.
PRO Electoral College (7-8)
Arca, Lorenzo. “The Federalism Importance of the Electoral College.” FIU Law Review, 27 Feb. 2017, p. 1. Florida International University Law, law.fiu.edu/2017/02/21/federalism-importance-electoral-college/. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. “Brittanica.” Review of Electoral College. Brittanica ProCon.Org, Brittanica, 1 Sept. 2017, www.procon.org/headlines/the-electoral-college-top-3-pros-and-cons/. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. Cochrane, John. “The Surprising Reason to Keep the Electoral College.” Polyced, 15 Apr. 2020, www.policyed.org/intellections/surprising-reason-keep-electoral-college/video. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. “Constitution.” Article II of the Constitution. National Constitution Center, constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. Excerpt originally published as “Article II Section I” in National Constitutional Center, 17 Sept. 1787, p. 1. “Electoral College Fast Facts.” Constitution. History, Art and Archives, history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Electoral-College/. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. Fried, Charles. “Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?” New York Times [New York], Room for Debate ed., 16 Nov. 2016. New York Times, www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/16/should-the-electoral-college-be-abolished. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. Goddard, Taegen. “Electoral Vote Map.” Electoral Vote Map, electoralvotemap.com/5-reawsons-to-keep-the-electoral-college/. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. Guelzo, Allen. “In Defense of the Electoral College.” National Affair [New York City], Jan. 2018. National Affair, www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, et al. The Federalist Papers. Yale UP, 2009. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm398. Accessed 1 Oct. 2020. Longley, Robert. “Reasons to Keep the Electoral College.” ThoughtCo, Aug. 29, 2020, thoughtco.com/why-keep-the-electoral-college-3322050. Madison, James. Federalist No. 10: “The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.” New York Daily Advertiser, November 22, 1787. Hamilton, Alexander, or James Madison. Madison. “Electoral College and Indecisive Elections.” Constitution. History, Art and Archives, history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Electoral-College/. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. Ross, Tara. “The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy.” The Heritage Foundation, 1 Nov. 2004. Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020.
CON Electoral College (9-10)
A&E Television Networks. “Electoral College.” History Channel. Last modified September 27, 2019. Accessed October 13, 2020. https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college. “Connecticut Compromise.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed October 13, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Connecticut-Compromise. Lardieri, Alexa. “Supreme Court Rules States Can Bind Electoral College Representative Votes.” U.S. News. Last modified July 6, 2020. Accessed October 13, 2020. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-07-06/supreme-courtrules-states-can-bind-electoral-college-representative-votes. Murse, Tom. “Electoral Votes by State in 2020.” ThoughtCo. Last modified September 5, 2020. Accessed October 13, 2020. https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035. “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.” BallotPedia. Accessed October 13, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact. Rodgers, Jack. “’Faithless Electors’ Lose High Court Battle Over 2016 Votes.” Courthouse News Service. Last modified July 6, 2020. Accessed October 13, 2020. https://www.courthousenews.com/faithless-electors-lose-high-court-battle-over2016-votes/. Roos, Dave. “Why was the Electoral College Created?” History Channel. Accessed October 13, 2020. https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention.
Role of Internet in Fundraising (11)
Chinni, Dante. “What Trump’s Changing Twitter Strategy Tells Us about 2020.” NBC News. Last modified July 12, 2020. Accessed October 5, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/what-trump-s-changing-twitter-strategytells-us-about-2020-n1233604. Stapleton, Christine. “How Much Have Local Congressional Candidates Spent on Facebook Ads?” MSN. Last modified September 21, 2020. Accessed October 5, 2020. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-much-have-local-congressional-candidates-spent-on-facebook-ads/ar-BB19bQLf. Younger, Anna. “The Rise and Rise of Instagram Activism.” Instinctif. Last modified August 25, 2020. Accessed October 5, 2020. https://instinctif.com/insights/rise-rise-insta-activism/.
MLK vs Black Power (13-14)
Buchanan, Larry, Quoctrung Bui, and Jugal K. Patel. “Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History.” The New York Times (New York City, NY), July 3, 2020. Accessed July 17, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html King Jr., Martin Luther. “The Other America.” Speech presented at Grosse Pointe High School, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI, March 14, 1968. http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/mlk-gp-speech.pdf. “The Fair Housing Act of 1968.” US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. Accessed July 17, 2020. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/hh_1968_04_10/ Theoharis, Jeanne. “Martin Luther King Jr Day: What We Get Wrong About His Story.” Editorial. Time. Last modified January 21, 2020. Accessed July 17, 2020. https://time.com/5099513/martin-luther-king-day-myths/
BLM and Palestine (15-16)
Arab News. ‘Palestinians’ Unbreakable Link with Black Lives Matter’, 16 June 2020. https://arab.news/92srv. Beauchamp, Zack. ‘What Is the Nakba?’ Vox, 20 November 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080030/israel-palestine-nakba. Congressional Research Service. ‘U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel’ Accessed 21 July 2020. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf Human Rights Watch. ‘World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Israel and Palestine’, 17 December 2018. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine. Israel-Palestine Timeline. ‘Eyad Al-Hallaq’, 31 May 2020. https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/eyad-al-hallaq/. Middle East Eye. ‘Ben & Jerry’s Freezes When It Comes to Palestine’. Accessed 21 July 2020. http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/progressive-ice-cream-ben-jerry-freezes-when-it-comes-palestine. Middle East Eye. ‘The 43 Times US Has Used Veto Power against UN Resolutions on Israel’. Accessed 21 July 2020. http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto-power-against-un-resolutions-israel. Middle East Monitor. ‘The Black Lives Matter Movement’s Stand with Palestinians Has a History’, 1 July 2020. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200701-the-black-lives-matter-movements-stand-with-palestinians-has-a-history/. Nofal, Aziza. ‘Palestinian Activists Press Solidarity between Palestinians, Black Lives Matter’. Al-Monitor, 17 June 2020. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/06/palestinian-protests-hallaq-floyd-israel-racism.html. Staff, Liberation. ‘The Long History of Black-Palestinian Solidarity – Liberation News’. Accessed 21 July 2020. https://www.liberationnews.org/history-black-palestinian-solidarity-html/. Sweeney, Steve. ‘Israeli Forces Trained Cops in “Restraint Techniques” at Minneapolis Conference’. People’s World (blog), Accessed 3 June 2020. https://peoplesworld.org/article/israeli-forces-trained-cops-in-restraint-techniques-at-minneapolis-conference/.
Foreign Influence of Belarusian Protests (17-18)
(www.dw.com), Deutsche Welle. “EU Response to Belarus Protests Hampered by Internal Divisions: DW: 21.09.2020.” DW.COM. Accessed October 17, 2020. https://www.dw.com/en/eu-response-to-belarus-protests-hampered-by-internaldivisions/ a-55008865. “Belarus: Nato Denies Foreign Troops Are on Border.” BBC News. BBC, August 23, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53877953. “International Reactions to the 2020 Belarusian Presidential Election and Protests.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, October 6, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2020_Belarusian_presidenti al_election_and_protests. Khurshudyan, Isabelle. “Russia’s Putin Ready to Send Forces to Belarus If Unrest ‘Gets out of Control’.” The Washington Post. WP Company, August 27, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-belarus-forces-putinprotests/2020 /08/27/77a6a23c-e856-11ea-bf44-0d31c85838a5_story.html. “Reuters: Wave Of Protests Under ‘Stop Cockroach!” Slogan Swept All Over Belarus.” Charter’97 :: News from Belarus - Belarusian News - Republic of Belarus - Minsk. Accessed October 17, 2020. https://charter97.org/en/news/2020/6/3/381022/. Serhan, Yasmeen. “What Belarus Learned From the Rest of the World.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, August 26, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/08/belaurus-protest-tactics-hong kong/615454/. Suarez, Ray. “Why Belarus’ Protests Have Russia Worried.” Slate Magazine. Slate, August 26, 2020. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/belarus-protests-russia-putin-kremlin-democr acy-worry.html. “Why Putin Cannot Allow Democracy to Win in Belarus.” Atlantic Council, September 1, 2020. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-putin-cannot-allow-democracy-to -win-in-belarus/. Zaiets, Karina, and Jennifer Borresen. “What Is Happening in Belarus? We Explain the Historic pro-Democracy Protests.” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, September 15, 2020. whttps://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/ news/2020/09/08/water-belarus-demonstrators-borro w-tactics-hong-kong-protests-they-rally-democracy/3437180001/.
33
Abe’s Succession & Legacy (20)
“Shinzo Abe.” Wikipedia. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinzo_Abe. McBride, James, and Beina Xu. “Abenomics and the Japanese Economy.” Council on Foreign Relations, March 23, 2018. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/abenomics-and-japanese-economy. Assessing Abe Shinzo’s Geopolitical Legacy. Written by Ankit Panda. Aired September 9, 2020, on The Diplomat. Sieg, Linda. “Abe’s mission unaccomplished: pushing to revise Japan’s pacifist charter.” Reuters, November 12, 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-abe-legacy-analysis/abes-mission-unaccomplished-pushing-to-revise-japanspacifist-charter-idUSKBN1XN089. McCurry, Justin. “Japan PM to overturn pacifist defence policy.” The Guardian, June 30, 2014. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/30/japan-pm-overturn-pacifist-defence-policy-shinzo-abe. Bloomberg. “Chinese Boycott May Be More Costly For Japan Than The Tsunami.” Business Insider, September 2012. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-boycott-hurts-japan-2012-9. The Mainichi (Tokyo). “Chronology of major events of Japan PM Shinzo Abe’s government.” August 28, 2020. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200828/p2g/00m/0na/110000c. “Japan PM’s Three New Arrows of Abenomics.” Video. YouTube. Posted by Bloomberg QuickTake, September 25, 2015. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2lLKCc9uJY. Choe, Sang-Hun. “South Korean Court Orders Mitsubishi of Japan to Pay for Forced Wartime Labor.” New York Times, November 2018. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/world/asia/south-korea-wartimecompensation-japan.html. Bremmer, Ian. “Why the Japan-South Korea Trade War Is Worrying for the World.” Time, October 3, 2018. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://time.com/5691631/japan-south-korea-trade-war/. Gibson, Jenna. “COVID-19 Aggravates an Already Tense Korea-Japan Relationship.” The Diplomat, March 12, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/covid-19-aggravates-an-already-tense-korea-japan-relationship/.
China in the Election 2020 (21-22)
Charlie Campbell, “Trump Says China Wants Him to Lose the U.S. Presidential Election. The Truth Is More Complex,” Time, September 29, 2020, accessed November 2, 2020, https://time.com/5894125/trump-biden-us-election-china/. Mercy A. Kuo, “US Presidential Elections 2020: The Taiwan Factor,” The Diplomat, October 5, 2020, accessed November 2, 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/us-presidential-elections-2020-the-taiwan-factor/. Frank Lavin, “What Next for a U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement?,” Forbes, October 5, 2020, accessed November 2, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/franklavin/2020/10/05/what-next-for-a-us-taiwan-free-trade-agreement/?sh=1f90b0182776. “Hong Kong Security Law: What Is It and Is It Worrying?,” BBC, June 30, 2020, accessed November 3, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838. teven Lee Meyers, “China Vows to Retaliate After Trump Signs Hong Kong Sanctions Bill,” The New York Times, July 15, 2020, accessed November 3, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/world/asia/china-trump-hong-kong.html. Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, H.R. 3289, 116th Cong. (as received in Senate, Oct. 19, 2019). Accessed November 3, 2020. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3289. “’Desperate Times, Desperate Measures’: The Hong Kong Protesters Who Want Trump to Win a Second Term,” Hong Kong Free Press, October 10, 2020, accessed November 3, 2020, https://hongkongfp.com/2020/10/10/desperate-timesdesperate-measures-the-hong-kong-protesters-who-want-trump-to-win-a-second-term/. Dan De Luce and Ken Dilanian, “Would Biden Get ‘tough’ on China?,” NBC News, September 6, 2020, accessed November 3, 2020, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/would-biden-get-tough-china-n1239203. James Crabtree, “Biden Has a Serious Credibility Problem in Asia,” Foreign Policy, September 10, 2020, accessed November 6, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/10/trump-biden-asia-credibility-problem/. Stewart M. Patrick, “What a Biden Win Would Mean for the Future of Multilateralism,” Council on Foreign Relations, November 2, 2020, accessed November 6, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/article/what-biden-win-would-mean-futuremultilateralism. Edward Alden, “No, Biden Will Not End Trade Wars,” Foreign Policy, October 2, 2020, accessed November 6, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/02/biden-trump-trade-wars-election-2020/. Catie Edmonson, “Senate Democrats Present $350 Billion Strategy to Counter China,” The New York Times, September 17, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/politics/democrats-china-strategy.html. Pesek, William. “Japan could be on the brink of a second wave. Will Shinzo Abe act?” The Washington Post, August 10, 2020. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/10/japan-could-be-brink-secondwave-will-shinzo-abe-act/. Huang, Eustance. “Japan’s Abe ‘looks like a lame duck’ as his government comes under fire for its coronavirus response.” Consumer News and Business Channel (CNBC), May 18, 2020. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://www.cnbc. com/2020/05/19/japans-shinzo-abe-looks-like-a-lame-duck-as-coronavirus-response-criticized.html. Griffiths, James, and Kaori Enjoji. “Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resigns for health reasons.” CNN, August 28, 2020. Accessed October 11, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/asia/shinzo-abe-japan-resignation-health-intl-hnk/ index.html.
International Reputation of the USA (23-24)
Ax, Joseph, Elizabeth Culliford, Timothy Gardner, Ted Hesson, Trevor Hunnicutt, Jason Lange, Simon Lewis, Michael Martina, Jeff Mason, Valerie Volcovici, and John Whitesides. “Where Biden and Trump stand on key issues.” Edited by Soyoung Kim. Reuters Graphics. Last modified July 8, 2020. Accessed September 26, 2020. https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/POLICY/ ygdpzwarjvw/. Conrad, Justin. “US Public Opinion Is Changing the Relationship With China.” The Diplomat (Tokyo, Japan), September 16, 2020, Politics. Accessed October 16, 2020. https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/us-public-opinion-is-changing-therelationship-with-china/. The Economist (London, England). “How George Floyd’s death reverberates around the world.” June 8, 2020, International. Accessed October 16, 2020. https://www.economist.com/international/2020/06/08/how-george-floyds-deathreverberates-around-the-world. Schuman, Michael. “Don’t Believe the China Hype.” The Atlantic (Boston, MA), June 16, 2020, Global. Accessed October 16, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/united-states-china-power-influence/612961/. Silver, Laura, Kat Devlin, and Christine Huang. “1. Views of the balance of power between U.S. and China.” Pew Research. Last modified December 5, 2019. Accessed October 16, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/12/05/ views-of-the-balance-of-power-between-u-s-and-china-2019/. Subramanian, Courtney, and Jordan Culver. “Donald Trump sidesteps call to condemn white supremacists — and the Proud Boys were ‘extremely excited’ about it.” USA Today. Last modified September 29, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/29/trump-debate-white-supremacists-stand-back-stand-by/3583339001/. Vargas, Edward D., and Gabriel R. Sanchez. “American individualism is an obstacle to wider mask wearing in the US.” Brookings. Last modified August 31, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/upfront/2020/08/31/american-individualism-is-an-obstacle-to-wider-mask-wearing-in-the-us/. Wike, Richard, Janell Fetterolf, and Mara Mordecai. “U.S. Image Plummets Internationally as Most Say Country Has Handled Coronavirus Badly.” Pew Research. Last modified September 15, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2020. https://www. pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/. Wike, Richard, Jacob Poushter, Janell Fetterolf, and Shannon Schumacher. “Trump Ratings Remain Low Around Globe, While Views of U.S. Stay Mostly Favorable.” Pew Research. Last modified January 8, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/.
Third Party Voting (25-26)
Bureau, US Census. ‘Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election’. The United States Census Bureau. Accessed 16 October 2020. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html. I Side With, accessed October 11, 2020, https://www.isihttps://www.isidewith.com/profile/4415616487/ballot/2020-presidentialdewith.com/profile/4415616487/ballot/2020-presidential. John Uebersax,”Why Vote The Third-Party?,” accessed October 11, 2020, http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/thirdparty.htm. Thom File, “Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election,” Census, last modified May 10, 2017, accessed October 11, 2020, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html.
Non-Partisan Spectrum (27-28)
Edwards, Rebecca. “New Mexico’s 20 Safest Cities of 2020.” SafeWise. Last modified August 5, 2020. Accessed October 18, 2020. https://www.safewise.com/blog/safest-cities-new-mexico/#:~:text=The%20violent%20crime%20rate%20 in,per%201%2C000%2C%20versus%2022.0%20nationwide. Lea, Brittany De. “Republicans slam Democrats’ $15 minimum wage bill: It would ‘eviscerate’ US jobs.” Fox Business. Last modified July 10, 2019. Accessed October 18, 2020. https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/republicans-slamdemocrats-minimum-wage-bill. Mellnik, Ted, Chris Alcantara, and Kevin Uhrmacher. “What Republicans and Democrats have disagreed on, from 1856 to today.” The Washington Post. Last modified July 15, 2016. Accessed October 18, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost. com/graphics/politics/2016-election/conventions/party-platform-evolution/. “Political Party Platforms and the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty Information Center. Last modified July 26, 2016. Accessed October 18, 2020. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/public-opinion-polls/political-party-platformsand-the-death-penalty. “Republican Party on Gun Control.” On The Issues. Last modified January 29, 2020. Accessed October 18, 2020. https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/republican_party_gun_control.htm. Rizer, Arthur, and Lars Trautman. “The conservative case for criminal justice reform.” The Guardian. Last modified August 5, 2018. Accessed October 18, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/05/the-conservative-case for-criminal-justice-reform. “These politicians have dodged the issue of gun control. We call BS — and you should, too.” Miami Herald. Last modified February 20, 2018. https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article201113684.html. “2020 presidential candidates on the minimum wage.” Ballotpedia. Accessed October 19, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/2020_presidential_candidates_on_the_minimum_wage. Uhrmacher, Kevin, Kevin Schaul, and Michael Scherer. “Where 2020 Democrats stand on Immigration.” The Washington Post. Last modified April 8, 2020. Accessed October 18, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/ policy-2020/immigration/.
Covid Stimulus Funding (31-32)
Kochhar, Rakesh. “Unemployment Rose Higher in Three Months of COVID-19 than It Did in Two Years of the Great Recession.” Pew Research Center, June 11, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/11/unemployment-rosehigher-in-three-months-of-covid-19-than-it-did-in-two-years-of-the-great-recession/#:~:text=Unemployment%20rose%20higher%20in%20three,years%20of%20the%20Great%20Recession&text=The%20COVID%2D19%20outbreak%20 and,20.5%20million%20in%20May%202020. Snell, Kelsey. “What’s Inside The Senate’s $2 Trillion Coronavirus Aid Package.” NPR.org, March 26, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package. Casselman, Ben. “Millions Relying on Pandemic Aid Can See Its End, and They’re Scared.” The New York Times, July 23, 2020, sec. Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/economy/coronavirus-stimulus-unemployment.html. U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. “Civilian Unemployment Rate.” Accessed September 30, 2020. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Personal Saving Rate.” FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 30, 2020. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT. The Editorial Board. “Opinion | Failing to Help Those Who Need It Most.” The New York Times, April 24, 2020, sec. Opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-stimulus-failure.html. Egan, Lauren. “Trump Signs Coronavirus Aid Bill as Tensions Rise over next One.” NBC News, April 25, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-expected-sign-interim-coronavirus-bill-tensions-rise-over-next-n1191711. Mider, Zachary R., and Cedric Sam. “Small-Business Rescue Shows Not All States Are Created Equal.” Bloomberg, April 21, 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=349088e0-0459-11eb-aa65-69f14e09db0a&url=L2dyYXBoaWNzLzIwMjAtc2JhLXBheWNoZWNrLXByb3RlY3Rpb24tcHJvZ3JhbS8/c3JlZj1xTjBEWnlwQQ==. Chase for Business. “Paycheck Protection Program and Chase Business Bank: Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed October 2, 2020. http://recovery.chase.com/cares1/ppp-faqs1. Kambhampati, Sandhya. “The Coronavirus Stimulus Package versus the Recovery Act.” Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-26/coronavirus-stimulus-package-versus-recovery-act. Rowan, Lisa. “GAO Report: 9 Million Americans At Risk Of Losing First Stimulus Check.” Forbes. Accessed October 2, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2020/09/21/gao-report-9-million-americans-at-risk-of-losing-first-stimuluscheck/. Stone, Chad, and Sharon Parrott. “Many Unemployed Workers Will Exhaust Jobless Benefits This Year If More Weeks of Benefits Aren’t in Relief Package.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 6, 2020. https://www.cbpp.org/ research/economy/many-unemployed-workers-will-exhaust-jobless-benefits-this-year-if-more-weeks-of. Cochrane, Emily. “House Passes $3 Trillion Aid Bill Over Republican Opposition.” The New York Times, May 15, 2020, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/us/politics/house-simulus-vote.html. Employment and Training Administration. “Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims.” Washington, D.C. 20210: U.S. Department of Labor, August 27, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OPA/newsreleases/ui-claims/20201814. pdf.
34
The First Amendment A Student Publication of The Lawrenceville School • Founded in the Bicentennial Year, 2010