December 10, 2021
OPINIONS Established 1874
Moderate Candidates Are Worth Our Time Emma Benardete Contributing Opinions Editor Until recently, the use of the word “liberal” in a negative sense was monopolized by conservatives. It was used to demean and mock what they viewed as the kind of politics that made everyone oversensitive and gave unnecessary handouts to people who didn’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Despite these efforts to belittle liberals, liberalism was once considered the political embodiment of social justice. Young, politically-minded idealists were content identifying with the movement, wearing their affiliation as a mark of pride when confronted by older relatives with conservative leanings. Now, however, the political landscape is changing. Many young people have separated themselves from the liberal movement, calling themselves “progressives” or “leftists” instead. They are demanding more progressive policies than ever before and are getting frustrated with the so-called establishment’s failure to keep up. In light of this change, progressive young adults have started to do what conservatives have always done: make “liberal” a dirty word. If 2021 taught us anything, it’s that moderates are faring better than progressives in general elections. As the New York Times editorial board wrote on Nov. 4, “What is badly needed, is an honest conversation in the Democratic Party about how to return to the moderate policies and values that fueled the blue-wave victories in 2018 and won Joe Biden the presidency in 2020.” Moderate doesn’t have to mean Joe Manchin moderate nor should it. However, we do need to be realistic about the kinds of candidates who can get elected, especially in highly contested races. With the U.S. Senate in a 50-50 deadlock heading into the 2022 midterms and an Ohio seat left open, the upcoming race will prove to be both consequential and highly competitive. The last thing we need is for a Trump-loving Republican candidate to win the election. To keep that from happening, we need to ensure the Democrat is popular enough to beat out someone like Josh Mandel, a far-right member of the Republican Party. This puts college students, and Oberlin students in particular, in a very difficult position. On the one hand, there is a well-founded reason for our reputation as the most progressive college in the country. Many, if not most, students on campus view themselves as progressives or leftists and only begrudgingly vote for more moderate liberal politicians. As college students who are just barely old enough to vote, it is understandable that the more progressive among us don’t want to compromise their political principles. We are, after all, in the “honeymoon phase” of our political action, giddy that we can finally cast a ballot. On the other hand, regardless of our individual politics, we are still squarely in the Midwest, where Trump flags abound. Here in Ohio, we have one Democratic and one Republican senator. Until 2020, the state predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1964, making it the ultimate swing state. As members of the Ohio electorate, we have a responsibility to contend with and contribute to the reality that Ohio votes are important for the whole country. Many progressives have been upset by the amount of support Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan has received for his Senate campaign, preferring instead to support the more progressive Morgan Harper. However, Ryan is the Democratic Party’s best chance at beating out a Mandel- or J.D. Vance-like figure come November, and he still supports President Biden’s ambitious policies like passing the Equality Act — he was one of its original co-sponsors — and increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. At Oberlin, I’ve heard plenty of criticism, and sometimes even contempt, for some of the more moderate politicians on the national stage. There seems to be this notion that moderates like Biden or Harris don’t deserve our time and energy. We actively campaign against them in the primaries, risking losing on electability in the general election, and then when moderate Democrats win those primaries, some people sulk and say, “No help from us,” while others put great effort into phone banking and working in other capacities to get the nominee elected, even if they weren’t their first choice. I saw posts last year from progressive acquaintances — though not from Oberlin students, as I was still in high school — saying that they wouldn’t vote and if Trump won, we couldn’t blame them because Biden wasn’t progressive enough. This is the kind of rhetoric I’m concerned about heading into 2022. If Tim Ryan wins the primary, we at least need to support him, phone bank for him, and vote for him in November, even though he isn’t many people’s first choice. Beyond that, I won’t tell you whom to campaign for and whom to vote for when the Senate primaries roll around, but given Biden’s ambitious agenda and the fact that Democrats stand to lose the Senate, there is something to be said for nominating a candidate who can win over some Republican votes in this Midwestern swing state, where we might still have a fighting chance. SUBMISSIONS POLICY
The Oberlin Review appreciates and welcomes letters to the editors and op-ed submissions. All submissions are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. All submissions must be received by Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. at opinions@oberlinreview.org or Wilder Box 90 for inclusion in that week’s issue. Letters may not exceed 600 words and op-eds may not exceed 800 words, except with consent of the Editorial Board. All submissions must include contact information, with full names and any relevant titles, for all signers. All writers must individually confirm authorship on electronic submissions. The Review reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity, length, grammar, accuracy, strength of argument and in consultation with Review style. Editors will work with contributors to edit pieces and will clear major edits with the authors prior to publication. Editors will contact authors of letters to the editors in the event of edits for anything other than style and grammar. Headlines are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. Opinions expressed in editorials, letters, op-eds, columns, cartoons or other Opinions pieces do not necessarily reflect those of the staff of the Review. The Review will not print advertisements on its Opinions pages. The Review defines an advertisement as any submission that has the main intent of bringing direct monetary gain to a contributor. The Oberlin Review | December 10, 2021
Volume 151, Number 8
Editorial Board Editors-in-Chief
Anisa Curry Vietze
Kushagra Kar
Managing Editor Gigi Ewing
Opinions Editor Arman Luczkow
Expected Overturn of Roe v. Wade Undermines Basic Human Rights On Wednesday, Dec. 1, the Supreme Court finished hearing oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, involving a Mississippi law that bans abortion at 15 weeks. Under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe and recognized the right to an abortion until 24 weeks of pregnancy, this Mississippi law is clearly unconstitutional. However, the oral arguments, and the conservative Court’s willingness to take on the case at all, have signaled that the Supreme Court is ready to reverse Roe v. Wade entirely. The official verdict will likely come in June or July, marking a historic decision in our country’s history. Overturning this decision will precipitate a cascade of effects. If and when the Court overturns Roe, the decision will disproportionately affect low-income people, who constitute three-quarters of individuals seeking abortions. The nearest abortion clinic to 41 percent of individuals of childbearing age will close, and the average distance they would have to travel for abortion care would increase from 35 miles to 279 miles. A total of 21 states will either immediately ban or quickly reduce access to abortion. Of these 21 states, 12 have “trigger laws” already in place that would immediately take effect, outlawing abortion entirely. In nine other states — including Ohio — abortion bans or restrictions that have, until now, been blocked by the courts due to Roe v. Wade could take effect. To state what may be obvious: this Editorial Board is distressed by the potential ramifications of an anti-choice verdict. We are devastated at the prospect of moving forward into a world with fewer reproductive rights than our grandparents had. We are devastated for every person with a uterus who will no longer be able to access care that is sometimes necessary for an individual’s mental health, financial sustainability and medical survival. This care is always, always, a human right. At a place like Oberlin, where the ease of conversations around abortion is somewhat taken for granted, it can be easy to assume that we all share similar experiences and perspectives on the matter. While that assumption is not entirely off-base — according to a Pew Research survey released earlier this year, 59 percent of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases — it is certainly not as unanimously agreed upon in the “real world” as it is on campus. While it can feel like preaching to the choir to talk about abortion at Oberlin, it’s still important to treat the subject with care and consideration, especially in light of the impending Supreme Court decision. If Roe is overturned, the current anti-abortion supermajority in the Ohio legislature will most certainly race to ban or extremely curtail access to abortion. Since 2011, over 20 anti-abortion laws have passed in Ohio, posing an already steep barrier to accessing safe pregnancy terminations. Today, there are only nine clinics that provide abortion in the state; 10 years ago there were 16. Even once a patient accesses a clinic, Ohio requires them to jump through several more hoops to access concrete care, including two in-person appointments — one of which is a “counseling and education session” — and a medically-unnecessary but mandatory ultrasound. Some Ohioans who live in rural areas or who are beyond 20 weeks pregnant already leave the state for abortions to bypass restrictive access to care. This means the likely overturning of Roe places parents, people without a solid support network, and low-income people seeking abortion in a particularly precarious situation. If Roe is overturned and Ohio bans abortion entirely, these individuals will be forced to travel even further if they need to access to care. For some communities, a post-Roe world is already in effect. Many — though not all — Oberlin students will continue to have some access to abortion regardless of the Supreme Court’s decison. But while Obies often have the resources to travel far distances or hail from large urban centers where access is not threatened, the reality looks drastically different for our neighbors in Lorain County, and the state overall. As the Court’s decision moves forward — particularly as it heads closer toward overturning Roe v. Wade — we ask that students take care to enter conversations about abortion with more consideration than they might previously have done. Editorials are the responsibility of the Review Editorial Board — the Editors-in-Chief, Managing Editor, and Opinions Editor — and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the Review.
5
