POLITIC THE
Spring 2012 I
A YALE UNDERGRADUATE JOURNAL OF POLITICS
Volume LXVI
Business as Usual What ever happened to financial reform?
Interviews With Eliot Spitzer on the Economy Christiane Amanpour on the Middle East Joe Sestak on Public Service Karen Petrou on Dodd-Frank
Spring 2012 I
1
What’s Inside Transition in NOrth Korea
Kim Jong Il is dead. South Korean voters and international analysts perceive opportunity for reform in Pyongyang, Seoul, and Washington. Is it time for change, or must hope in Kim Jong Un yield to unchanging national interests? Learn more on page 28.
HydrofrackinG “Fracking� is a cutting-edge method of extracting natural gas from shale. This provides the opportunity to infuse greater domestic supply into the American energy market, creating thousands of jobs and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers. But fracking has raised grave environmental concerns that require new government regulation. Learn more on page 21.
What Occupy can learn from spain After a period of initial chaos, the Indignados in Spain reorganized themselves under a common manifesto. Their pragmatism provided the protests with a defined focus that has hugely re-energized the movement. As Occupy Wall Street loses momentum, Marc DeWitt argues that its organizers could learn from the newfound vigor of Madrid and materialize their idealistic aims. Learn more on page 50.
Table of Contents
Politic the
Spring 2012 I - Volume LXVI
INTERNATIONAL
FEATURE The State of the Union
A Conversation with Eliot Spitzer Conducted by Deena Gottlieb
24
By Austin Schaefer
28
The Myth of China’s Rise
33
An Interview with Minxin Pei Conducted by Raphael Leung
NATIONAL Rethinking the Primary System
New Player, Same Game
By David Lawrence
3
Revitalizing Turkey’s Future with its Ottoman Past
34
By Allison Lazarus
For God, for Country, for Yale... And for Obama
4
A Tale of Two Revolutionaries
35
The Case for Public Service
6
Piecing Together the Middle East
37
The Splintering of the Evangelical Vote By Marissa Medansky
9
Remember Darfur
41
Wisconsin Recall Election Reflects National Fights
11
The Anomaly of Female Leadership in Latin America
42
Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Dispute
45
Burma: One Step Forward or One Step Back?
46
Learning from Ai Weiwei, China’s Dissident Extraordinair
48
Lo Queremos Todo y Lo Queremos Ya
50
By Eric Stern
An Interview with Joe Sestak Conducted by Eric Stern
By Matthew Nussbaum
It’s Still the Economy, Stupid By Noah Remnick
Yellow Journalism of the 21st Century The Casey Anthony Complex By Justin Schuster
Dodd-Frank and the Fiscal Crackdown An Interview with Karen Petrou Conducted by Will Jordan
Hydrofracking Picking Up Steam A Case Study in Energy and Environment By Scott Greenberg
14 16 19 21
The Antithetical Legacies of Václav Havel and Kim Jong-Il By Donna Horning
An Interview with Christiane Amanpour Conducted by Jacob Effron
By Hamara Abate
By Rachel Kubi
By Aleksandra Georgeiva
By Eli Rivkin
By Cindy Hwang
Lessons from Madrid By Marc DeWitt
Pictures from CreativeCommons used under Attribution Noncommercial license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Spring 2012 I
1
From the Editors
Politic the
A YAle UndergrAdUAte JoUrnAl of Politics
eDitors-in-Chief Byron Edwards Jacob Effron
managing eDitor Josef Goodman
national eDitors Charles Gyer Will Jordan
international eDitors Donna Horning Meredith Potter
features eDitor Sibjeet Mahapatra
DireCtors of online relations Sun Woo Ryoo Eric Stern
DireCtors of Development Eli Rivkin Justin Schuster
DireCtor of puBliC relation Noah Remnick
staff Writers
Hamara Abate, Marc DeWitt, Aleksandra Georgeiva, Scott Greenberg, Cindy Hwang, Rachel Kubi, David Lawrence, Allison Lazarus, Raphael Leung, Marissa Medansky, Matthew Nussbaum, Austin Schaefer
Development
Jin Gon Park,by director Yale Election Spread Jay Pabarue Xiaochen Su
BoarD of aDvisors John Lewis Gaddis
Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military & Naval History, Yale University
David Gergen
Editor-at-Large, U.S. News & World Report
Anthony Kronman
Former Dean, Yale Law School
Ian Shapiro
Director, Yale Center for International and Area Studies
For information regarding submissions, advertisements, subscriptions, contributions, or to provide feedback, please contact us at politicatyale@gmail. com or write us at
the Politic
P.O. Box 201452 New Haven, CT 06520-1452 Disclaimer: This magazine is published by Yale College students, and Yale University is not responsible for its contents. The opinions expressed by the contributors to the Politic do not necessarily reflect those of its staff or advertisers.
2
THE POLITIC
Dear Reader,
Spring 2012 i
When 60 percent of Americans believe their country to be on the wrong track, something must be up. Wall Street profits are back and yet millions remain under or unemployed. The long-term doesn’t look much better. Spiraling healthcare costs threaten to bankrupt the government and make treatment unaffordable for the growing poor. Washington DC, meanwhile, is too paralyzed by partisanship to confront the challenges. As Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell famously said, his number one priority wasn’t jobs or fiscal sustainability, it was making President Obama “a one-term president.” President Obama has been largely unwilling to engage in a bipartisan conversation about America’s fiscal future. The Tea Party activists and the Occupy Wall Street protesters recognize the need for radical change. They have marched and shouted, petitioned their Congressmen, and written letters to the editors. Conspicuously absent, however, are the details. Slogans do not make for effective policy. Drowning the government in a bathtub will leave too many out to dry. Allowing it to continue to fund every health procedure, Solyndra, and Bridge to Nowhere the people demand, is unsustainable. The Politic sits down with politicians, policymakers, journalists, and academics to answer rhetoric with reason and move to a conversation around practical policy. In our Feature, former governor of New York Eliot Spitzer recommends higher investments in education to save the middle class. Former Representative Admiral Joe Sestak discusses the future of the U.S. military. Karen Petrou, financial expert, stresses simplicity in the regulation of financial markets. Anchorwoman Christiane Amanpour emphasizes the need for intelligently planned overseas interventions. America is far from the only country with protests and an uncertain future. We explore the “Indignados” movement in Spain and artistic dissent in China, tackle regime change in North Korea and what’s next for Burma, China, Darfur and Turkey. As the information in our survey shows, Yalies care about politics. We hope to extend beyond talking points to contribute to a mature political conversation on campus. Thank you for reading. We hope you enjoy the issue.
Byron Edwards and Jacob Effron
National
Rethinking the Primary System By Austin Schaefer
T
he presidential nomination process is a haphazard mess of primaries and caucuses that developed over years of tinkering and reform. Spread over a period of months, between states differing vastly in size, location, and demographics, the primary system forces candidates through a gauntlet of hand-shaking, media scrutiny, and debates. Concerning, though, is the emphasis placed on states that hold early primaries and caucuses, particularly Iowa and New Hampshire. Voters in other states with later primaries, such as Connecticut, often do not have a chance to vote in an election that is still competitive. This raises the question of whether anything can be done to improve or regularize the system and to prevent voters in some states from being disenfranchised. In the early 19th century, candidates were chosen with relative speed and efficiency by backroom meetings of Congressmen. This process was, by design, anti-democratic and was soon replaced by party conventions, in which the entire nation’s party elite (elected or otherwise) would choose their candidate over the course of a single day. These conventions were conducted with intense negotiation and intrigue of party bosses, and the lack of transparency involved led to the 1968 riots at the Democratic National Convention. Soon after which both parties implemented the direct primary system used today. There are several chief criticisms of the primary system. First and foremost is the premium placed on early primaries. The campaign focus on several individual states, scrutinized
Iowa and New Hampshire capture the nation’s attention in the months before primary season. Above, the Corn Poll at the Iowa State Fair.
incessantly by the national media, distorts the national debate between candidates by catering rhetorically to a small subset of the population while the rest simply listens. Iowa and New Hampshire voters are remarkably different ideologically and demographically from the rest of the nation. The summer months spent watching politicians pander to these states’ electorates gives the rest of the nation an unclear understanding of candidates’ more general and nationally-applicable message. States with late primaries receive no direct campaigning and often do not participate meaningfully in the process in any way. By mid-March, the candidate will almost certainly have become obvious. Furthermore, because primaries, and particularly caucuses, are generally attended by party enthusiasts and elite, they are still not very democratic and force candidates to appeal to the ideological extreme within the party, a reversal of their strategy in the general election. The difficulty is that, unlike in the 1820’s or 1970’s, no alternate option seems viable. Having a “national primary day” on which the whole country votes at once would certainly be “democratic,” but would be a logistical mess for campaigns and would place a massive premium on name recognition. An initially unknown candidate such as Bill Clinton in 1992 or Jon Huntsman in 2012 would never have a chance if not given the opportunity to campaign to a limited voting bloc. There are, however, ways to improve the current system. The length of the primary season is beneficial; though arduous, it tests candidates thoroughly and ensures (for the most part) that all skeletons are out of the closet come November. There is no reason, however, that Iowa and New Hampshire must always go first; the calendar could be rearranged from election to election to allow other states a chance at the national spotlight. Another option is to group states together with dissimilar demographic makeup and voting tendencies. The most important consideration, from the perspective of the national dialogue, is that differing factions within the party be given attention early in the process. Pairing Iowa and New Hampshire does a good job of this by testing candidates first among more social conservatives and next among more libertarian conservatives, but the system most branches out its exposure to varying views within the party. While the primary system has done its job reasonably well thus-far, avoiding the violence and chaos that characterized the 1968 Democratic National Convention, it can and should be improved. Austin Schaefer is a freshman in Jonathan Edwards College.
Spring 2012 I
3
For God, For Country, For Yale...
a m a b O r o And f
A Politic poll of Yale undergraduates reveals that students are liberal, supportive of Obama By Eric Stern
How would you describe your political stance?
Ideologies by gender
Methodology: The Politic sent out an email to randomly selected Yale undergraduates at 8:30 pm on the evening of Tuesday, February 7. In the next 24 hours, 987 students responded, yielding a margin of error of + or – 2.81 (assuming a 95 percent confidence interval).
4
THE POLITIC
88% of undergraduates polled said that
they will vote in the upcoming presidential election. The chart below shows who they’ll cast their ballots for.
Support for Obama against a generic Republican is higher among women (77%) than it is among men (70%).
By the Colleges Plan to vote for Obama Plan to vote for a Republican candidate 75% 19%
73% 15%
75% 14%
79% 12%
69% 21%
70% 21%
72% 19%
67% 24%
71% 18%
71% 19%
83% 11%
76% 13%
Do you find: Barack Obama favorable?
W h e n u n d e r g r a d u a t e s we r e prompted with hypothetical election scenerios, Republican candidates faired poorly against Obama, with the most competitve, Mitt Romney, getting just 20% suppor t. Apparently, Stephen Colbert (44%) or Dean Mary Miller (40%) would make it a better match come November.
Mitt Romney favorable?
20%
17%
Newt Gingrich favorable?
9%
44%
Spring 2012 I
5
National
The Case for Public Service An Interview with Joe Sestak Conducted by Eric Stern Joe Sestak, Jr. is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives who represented Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district from 2007 until 2011. A former three star Admiral, Sestak is the highest ranking military official ever elected to Congress. Sestak served in the United States Navy for 31 years and was the Director for Defense on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. Following the September 11 attacks, he served as the first director of the Navy’s top-secret counter-terrorism unit. Sestak was the fourth Democrat to win the PA-7 since the Civil War, and was named the most productive member of his legislative class. In the House, Sestak served on three committees and handled three times the average number of constituent complaints. The Politic: Former four-star Admiral and Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark once described you as “a patriot’s patriot.” Can you please speak to why you believe public service is so important? JS: I believe that America’s character is based on an alliance where the rugged individual is allied with the common enterprise. It’s where one’s best drive for one’s own individual achievement is never measured apart from the greater effort. In short, when you really step back and think about it, one cannot do better for oneself than by serving others. And so that has been my life — first in the Navy and then to pay back this nation in Congress. The Politic: At one point in your naval career, you commanded an air craft carrier battle group that conducted operations in Afghanistan and Iraq with 30 U.S. and allied ships and more than 15,000 sailors. Can you discuss how this experience shaped your views of how the military should operate and your approach to politics? JS: I learned in the Navy that each individual should be all [he or she] can be, but that one can never be measured apart from the common mission. And that knowledge helped me as far as my approach to politics and policy. I love rugged individualism, but I want to make sure that we don’t endanger the common enterprise of America with unfettered individualism. I learned great principles of responsibility, yes, but also accountability for that responsibility, where you really know that at the end of the day leading individuals into harm’s way, you are accountable for the mission and for those individual youths. And finally, I learned that an organizational approach to an issue [greatly helps you]. You know, successful generals win and then they go to war. The ability to strategize — to plan an organization and operation and then to be able to be flexible enough to change — that is also something that helped me do well in politics. 6
THE POLITIC
The Politic: When you served as the first director of the Navy Operations Group (Deep Blue) you worked to rein in military spending. Can you explain how you did that and how further cuts (if any) to the military should be made? JS: When I was a three-star, I was in charge of cutting $70 billion of warfare programs. And in that job, I recommended that the Navy didn’t need 315 ships, it needed about 240 to 250. [This was] because I came to recognize at Deep Blue that the military was using the wrong metric to measure its power. [Military leaders were asking] how many aircraft, how many ships, how many brigades, how many divisions? And the real metric of the future was capability, not numbers. It was the capability to know where your adversary was so that
As the first director of the Navy Operations Group, Admiral Sestak suggested measuring strength not by numbers but by intelligence capability — he traded ships for knowledge-based systems.
National
you might act and take men out more swiftly, or say today is not your day and don’t act. Reading those numbers was how we got bin Laden. And so what I recommended and delivered to Congress was a plan — a shipbuilding plan that recognized we were using the wrong metric. And while we were a good Navy, we were not the most cost-efficient, nor the most effective Navy. So rather than 54 submarines, we recommended 34, and we moved the money into knowledge-based systems that could acquire knowledge quickly for our warriors to better do their mission. And that’s how I approached it. A better, more cost-efficient military and better accountability for the resources the citizens provide us will benefit us in the forces. That was really the strategy behind it. It was an understanding of why we could do more — better — with less.
ing up front of why we are going to use military force. And I felt that the President did not address our citizens’ concerns before addressing the legitimate sensitivities abroad. I think evidence of this failure is that this was the first intervention since Gallup polls started that the U.S. public did not support as a majority. And that gets back to the issue that we have lost faith and trust — understandably — in our leaders in both parties and in all institutions across the board, from Wall Street to labor unions. I’m glad [the situation] came out the way it did, particularly since NATO, led by England and France, was just about out of gas, but that’s why I did not support it.. The Politic: After retiring from the Navy following a 31-year career there, what made you decide to run for Congress?
The Politic: What is your view of proper military force? JS: Proper military force means using force in accordance with what is in the United States’ interests. And we have three interests. First, we have vital interests that have to do with the survivability of our nation, for which we will do anything. Second, we have important interests — those that have to do with changing the character of the world, and that if we don’t address them with military force, will harm our peace and prosperity. This was Bosnia. And third, we have humanitarian interests, where often it is not U.S. force that is needed, but U.S. forces, often in logistics or safeguarding an area, such as what we didn’t do in Rwanda — because these have to do with our ideals. In the case of vital interests, we’ll do anything. [When dealing with] important and humanitarian interests, we need to assess the benefits versus the costs. And if the benefits are greater than the costs, this means that we must appropriately use our military force. We need to be able to determine the appropriate amount of military needed and what is the proper benchmark and metric to measure success.
JS: My daughter was struck with a malignant disease — brain cancer — and my wife and I needed to address that above anything else. And because of the healthcare plan that this nation provided in the military, my daughter is now 10 — going on 22 — [and] has an opportunity to contribute to this nation. I wanted to also pay back this nation that gave her an opportunity to have a future to contribute. And that’s what drove me into politics — to pay back a wonderful country.
“They actually cared more about keeping a Democrat in power than doing what was needed and using their energy to fight for the right things and for people. And that’s why I finally decided to run.”
The Politic: Did you support military operations in Libya? JS: I did not, because of what I just stated. I felt that the President had not provided the nation with a clearly defined and achievable mission, where the use of military force was carefully matched to the political objectives. I [also] don’t think [President Obama] provided an assessment of potential benefits versus the risks and the costs to the American people. Nor [did he provide] a timeline with specific, quantifiable milestones to let us know the extent of progress. And so I felt very strongly that it’s not just what you do, but how you do it. And while I understand the explanation that we might not want a third intervention into a Muslim country, the constituency that I felt should have been most important to the President — when so many had lost faith in our government and trust in our leaders — was the American citizens that needed an account-
The Politic: What is your proudest achievement while you were in Congress? JS: It was the work we did in our district. We kept the office open seven days a week, to 8 o’clock, 9 o’clock, every night. We got the youth of America involved in my staff — 15 plus interns. And anyone with an issue, anyone with a problem, could call and come into the office and have access to someone who worked for them — me. I was their public servant. And whether it was providing a never-awarded medal to a World War II veteran in his bedroom two days before he passed away, or helping a family that had a youth who had autism get [him] into the appropriate institutional facility, or helping over 1,600 [people] who had had their mortgages under foreclosure and see if we could stymie that damage. I think that’s what Spring 2012 I
7
National
I’m most proud of. Eventually, Americans will be all they can be, but they elect someone to serve them in those moments when they need a little helping hand. And that’s what I’m most proud of. The Politic: Do you believe that you were a better public servant and made more of a difference in the House or in the Navy? JS: I think I had a direct impact on a very discrete group of sailors in each command I had in the Navy. But in Congress, there was probably a broader swath of impact that I was able to help bring about. There, I was able to affect legislation that could help small businesses more, [businesses] that create 80 percent of all jobs. And there I was able to work on funding for education — particularly in Pell grants, Stafford loans and other areas — and help people have a fair opportunity and a better opportunity for education so they could contribute even more to our nation. So they were different types [of impact]. I loved the Navy more than anything, even more than serving in Congress; it was my first love. But I learned a lot in Congress about how to affect working people. The Politic: Why did you decide to run for Senate in 2010? JS: I was asked by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Senator Menendez and Senator Dodd — and I, demure, wanted time with my family. But after about two months, there were requests that I reconsider and reconsider, [and] I agreed. About two weeks later, Senator [Arlen] Spector changed from being a Republican to be a Democrat and I was asked not to run. Having put my family through the rigor [of the process], I decided that this was now my family’s decision, and definitely not the Party’s. And I went through
the 67 counties of Pennsylvania to listen and to talk. And in Potter County I met a farmer who, when I asked him how the recession [was treating him], replied with a smile, “Not too bad, I was already hurting!” And right then for some reason I knew that Americans were being left out. My Party’s establishment … placed party above citizen. They actually cared more about keeping a Democrat in power than doing what was needed and using their energy to fight for the right things and for people. And that’s why I finally decided to run. The Politic: What are you doing now and what are your plans for the future? JS: I just finished my thank-yous. I went to each of the 67 counties [in Pennsylvania] and thanked my volunteers that way. And during that time I listened. I’ve talked to various individuals and that [is helping] me determine how I want to do public service, because I will do public service. I just need to decide whether that’s best approached by elected office again — and if so, at what level — or in what area or areas. And that’s what I have been doing. The Politic: Do you have any interest in challenging Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett in 2014 or even a rematch with Senator Pat Toomey in 2016? JS: Again, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. [I will work in] public service. But elected office or not? If so, at what level? If not, in what area? That’s what I’m trying to determine in the months to come. My wife’s given me a year plus to figure it out. Eric Stern is a freshman in Pierson College.
In 2006, Sestak decided to run for Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district. His main motivation? To provide everyone with the same healthcare services given to his daughter who was diagnosed with brain cancer. 8
THE POLITIC
National
The Splintering of the Evangelical Vote By Marissa Medansky
O
n the TLC reality television program “19 Kids and Times published “Why Evangelicals Don’t Like Mormons,” Counting,” Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar chronicle their while “Why Mitt Romney’s Mormonism Doesn’t Matter” lives raising nineteen children on a sprawling Arkansas ranch. made an appearance in Rolling Stone. In Iowa, entrance polls The Duggars adhere to a fundamentalist evangelical move- revealed that 14 percent of evangelical voters cast ballots for ment known as Quiverfull, which implores followers to birth Romney—the same percentage that voted for Texas governor as many children as reproductively possible — embracing the Rick Perry. In South Carolina, that percentage rose to 22 perchildren-as-arrows metaphor of Psalm 127. As America’s most cent. And in Florida: 38 percent. famous Quiverfull family, the Duggars fancy their television In engineering George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection camprogram as a sort of ministry: a culture war-weapon to transmit paign, Karl Rove focused on American evangelicals, many conservative values — homeschooling, family, faith, modesty of whom had stayed home in 2000. The years leading up to and so on — to secular households across the country. Yet Bush’s reelection saw an explosion of evangelical political acthe 2012 primary season has pushed the Duggars from their tivity among teenagers, shattering the perceived monopoly of small-town stage to the Washington political arena, where their liberalism on the youth vote. In 2003, for instance, the Home endorsement has become a potent political tool for a fellow culture warrior. “We totally believe that Rick Santorum is the best candidate,” Jim Bob Duggar told a packed crowd during the South Carolina primary. Though Jim Bob served as an Arkansas state legislator from 1999 to 2002, he and his family made their national political debuts during the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses. Jim Bob and Michelle made Santorum stump speeches; the kids wooed voters with Von Trapp-style renditions of “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” and “God Bless America.” When Santorum left the campaign trail to tend to his hospitalized daughter, who suffers from a rare genetic condition known as Edwards syndrome, the Duggars took his place at official campaign events from Florida to Pennsylvania. The pro-life, pro-homeschooling Duggars represented and exemplified many of Santorum’s beliefs, and provided a natural, homegrown platform for his politics. Though Santorum is Roman Catholic, his faith and its manifestations often adopt the buzzwords of evangelicalism, and his heartland appeal often relies on, or at least benefits from, keeping his Catholicism hush-hush while positioning his Christianity front and center. According to an Edison Research entrance poll from the Iowa caucuses, Santorum won the greatest proportion of the self-described evangelical vote — with 40 percent of voters hoping for a candidate with “strong moral character” casting their ballots for him. Yet in South Carolina, Gingrich, also a convert to Catholicism, nabbed a majority of the evangelical demographic two days after the founder of the prominent Christian group Focus on the Family endorsed Rick Santorum. And then, of course, there’s Mitt Romney: the Mormon candidate. Evangelical voices offered mixed messages, and “The years leading up to Bush’s reelection saw an explosion of political commentators disputed the extent to which Romney’s evangelical political activity among teenagers, shattering the faith would sway the conservative Christian vote. The New York perceived monopoly of liberalism on the youth vote.”
Spring 2012 I
9
National
“Though Santorum is Roman Catholic, his faith and its manifestations often adopt the buzzwords of evangelicalism, and his heartland appeal often relies on, or at least benefits from, keeping his Catholicism hush-hush while positioning his Christianity front and center.” School Legal Defense Association, helmed by conservative constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, launched Generation Joshua, an organization that recruits young homeschoolers as activists for religious political causes. Farris’s Patrick Henry College excused its students from class before the 2004 election; other Christian universities, like Bob Jones and Liberty, acted as similar hubs for the political mobilization of the Religious Right. Institutions like Patrick Henry and Liberty derive their philosophy from the sentiment found in Pat Buchanan’s 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention. “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America,” Buchanan said. “It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.” The conditions of total war inherent in the battle for America’s soul necessitate the personal-as-political attitude so perfectly encapsulated in the Duggar family. The Quiverfull movement encourages parents to view each additional child as yet another arrow in the quiver of God — much in the same way that Michael Farris and Pat Buchanan see themselves as generals in the culture war against secularism. At the heart of the culture war sit conservative social issues: abortion, same-sex marriage, and the line between church and state. After all, certain economic policies may prove unwise,
10
THE POLITIC
but rarely do they stand in direct opposition to the will of God. Economic policies rarely capture the hearts and minds of voters. Social issues, on the other hand, become a sort of symbolic politics, insofar as individual policies like abortion funding, a perceived decline in moral standards and civil unions come to represent affronts to religion and Christianity at large. And buzzwords — the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and so on — translate into votes. In previous years, evangelical votes fell on deeply partisan lines. Over 70 percent of evangelical voters in 2008 voted for Arizona Senator John McCain. Though many mainstream Republicans criticized McCain’s perceived reputation for failing to adhere to party lines, none could doubt his faith; meanwhile, many conservative voters remained skeptical of Obama’s religious background. And in the 2004 election, the previously vetted Bush provided the only conservative-friendly alternative to the secularism of John Kerry. But in the 2012 Republican primary, evangelical voters have their pick of anyone-but-Obama candidates, with Santorum, Gingrich, Paul and even Romney attracting their share of votes. Therein rests the problem for the contemporary Religious Right — they are unable to translate widespread antiObama sentiment into support for one particular candidate. And as politicians begin to pander to evangelical voters — think Ron Paul, who broke from his heavily economic platform to attend a summit dedicated to promoting pro-life definitions of personhood — it is worth considering whether the religiosity of conservatives will hold the same sacred position it did in elections past. Voters concerned about religious definitions of morality will never go away completely, but in an election centered on issues of secular economics, many primary voters — those less religious than the core of the Religious Right movement — may decide to compromise some matters of faith. But the Religious Right is still kicking: think of the recent decsion, now reversed, for breast cancer advocacy organization Susan G. Komen for the Cure to remove funding for Planned Parenthood services, or the evangelical-led campaign to persuade retail giant J.C. Penney to oust Ellen DeGeneres as a sponsor. These grassroots efforts exemplify a new approach for the Religious Right, focused on diffusing widespread action in the Internet age, not clinging to a few big-name leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. All movements change, and the evangelical movement gains nothing from stagnation. Yet the decision to bring the Religious Right into 21st century politics might force evangelicals to sacrifice their stake in choosing the 2012 GOP nominee — a splintering of the evangelical vote, but not necessarily the evangelical movement. Marissa Medansky is a freshman in Morse College.
National
Wisconsin Recall Election Reflects National Fights By Matthew Nussbaum
A
rookie governor, voter outrage and a clash between workers and union-busting billionaires have transformed placid, historically progressive Wisconsin into one of the fiercest American political battlefields in decades. Last month, those seeking to oust Republican governor Scott Walker – just one year into his first term – presented 1.9 million signatures to force a recall election that could take place as early as this spring. Wisconsin is set to preview the forces and issues that will dominate the national conversation in this year’s bruising presidential election. “Wisconsin is ground zero for the two visions of what government ought to be doing, and how we get out of the economic and fiscal trouble we’re in,” said University of Wisconsin political science professor Barry Burden. Walker was elected in 2010, as Tea Party fervor swept the nation, and debate about deficits and debt consumed all else. He won on a platform of creating jobs and balancing the budget, without raising taxes. But his agenda quickly became more confrontational. One of his first legislative acts — in league with a new Republican majority in the legislature — was to attack the collective bargaining rights of public labor unions. Walker’s opening salvo was driven by the state’s arcane
Wiscosin governor Scott Walker took aggressive action against unions upon entering office.
budget rules. Wisconsin operates on two-year budgets, meaning Walker and legislative Republicans would have to wait until 2012 to craft their own budget. But with the goal of erasing a $137 million budget shortfall, waiting was not an enticing option. Governor Walker sought instead to pass a “budget repair” bill, a fairly routine amendment to a previously adopted budget. What was far from routine was the scope of this repair bill, its name soon recognized in all corners of the state: Act 10. The bill stripped public employees of their right to collectively bargain over anything but wages; previously, public sector unions had been permitted to negotiate hours, working conditions and benefits, as well. The bill also banned wage increases greater than the rate of inflation. Act 10 did not stop there. It also forbade public sector labor unions from automatically deducting dues from members’ paychecks — a common practice among many unions, public and private. The bill also required public sector unions to hold yearly certification elections to retain their members. The budget repair bill “comes close to making public sector unions not viable,” said Craig Gilbert ’80, the Washington bureau chief of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. When the bill was introduced in early February of 2010, Walker wanted it passed within days and without the usual hearings that accompany such legislative moves. Public outrage was nearly instantaneous – but the attempt to roll back 52 years of collective bargaining rights was not the only source of anger for many. “It wasn’t just the policy, it was the way he undertook the policy,” said Graeme Zielinski, communications director for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. “He was very secretive, he was very deceptive…He was exposed as someone who wasn’t trustworthy.” While Walker has since said he wishes he had moved more slowly and worked to build greater consensus, striving for broad legislative accomplishments early in one’s term is nothing new in politics. “If you’re going to be ambitious, you want to do it when you first get in there,” said national political commentator Dick Polman. Some see an external impetus for Walker’s move, with roots beyond state borders. In the era of Super PACs, with the growing influence of organized money, the billionaire Koch brothers played an important role in financing Walker’s rise to power and bankrolling his agenda. David and Charles Koch made their fortunes in the Texas oil industry, and they are known for championing conservative candidates and crusadSpring 2012 I
11
National
rallying of public employees from around the state. Crowds grew as large as 100,000. Peacefully protesting both outside and within the capitol, the demonstrators rapidly attracted national media attention to their cause and to Walker’s intransigence. Wisconsin state senators only needed a simple majority to pass Act 10. Seeing the futility in the math, 14 Senate Democrats, quickly dubbed the Fab Fourteen, fled the state to Illinois, preventing the Republicans from marshalling the needed quorum to bring the measure up for a vote. Ratcheting up the heat from the other side, Walker began making national media appearances, publishing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to discuss the issues at hand and defend his stance. Act 10 was eventually passed and signed in mid-March, as the Republicans made use of a procedural maneuver to vote the bill through without a quorum, bringing the Democrats’ three week absence to an end. But the movement that had sprung up in opposition only grew more robust. Months earlier, before tumult swept the state, Walker declared in his inaugural address: “I took a solemn oath to defend our Constitution, which rests right here. Our Constitution is a document of, by and for the people. It is bigger than any government, any Legislature, or any Governor.” The people of Wisconsin took him at his word, though perhaps not as he had envisioned. Tucked within that Constitution is one Article 13, Section 12, entitled the “Recall of Elective Officers.” Added to the state Constitution in 1926, in an era of progressive reforms, the section provides for recall elections to take place before the end of the official’s term if enough signatures are gathered — the number is set at 25 percent of the voters in the last election. All signatures must be collected within 60 days. Democrats and Republicans scrambled into action, and nine state senators — of 33 in the chamber — ended up facing recall elections last year. Three Democrats and six Republicans faced the voters. $35 million was poured into the race, with the first election taking place in July and the rest following in August. All three Democrats retained their seats (the narrowest margin of victory was 10 percentage points), while two of the six Republicans were recalled. That cut the Republican majority in the state senate to a tenuous 17-16. The GOP declared After the major defeat in 2008, Republicans gained momentum victory, as Republicans maintained control. throughout 2009 and 2010, putting in office new Governors in The process only brought Wisconsin further eleven states that had voted for President Obama. See above the into the national spotlight. “The explosion of recalls Governors’ margins of victory compared to President Obama’s in last summer,” said Mr. Gilbert ’80, “was a totally 2008. All of these states, with the possible exception of New Jersey unprecedented event in U.S. history.” which remains solidly Democratic, will be fiercely contested in 2012. ing against labor unions. Between 1997 and 2008, the Koch brothers gave more than $17 million to anti-union groups, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, according to a report by National Public Radio. Many attribute Walker’s swift action against the public unions to the Koch brothers’ influence. “He knew who he owed,” said Polman, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer and a Writer-in-Residence at the University of Pennsylvania. “He knew who put him there.” At the same time labor unions remain some of Democrats’ biggest donors, both nationally and in a labor-heavy state like Wisconsin. Republican leaders defended the move as common-sense reform to curtail government spending and trim the public workforce, as well as provide for job growth. “He [Walker] believes that state government, taxes and regulation inhibit job growth…Benefits to state employees are part of that,” said Professor Burden. To protest Walker’s efforts, masses of state workers began assembling outside the Madison capitol almost as soon as the legislation was proposed, and it became strikingly clear that there was to be no room for debate in the legislature. Madison, a liberal university town, proved an ideal location for the rapid
12
THE POLITIC
National
Soon, the prospect of recalling the governor began to seem a legitimate possibility. Only two governors had ever been recalled in the United States — Lynn Frazier of North Dakota in 1921 and Gray Davis of California in 2003. Only 19 states allow the recall of Governors. In neighboring Ohio, outrage had also erupted over a similar bill limiting collective bargaining for public employees. Ohio does not, however, allow recall elections. The voter revolt instead took the form of a referendum, in which voters resoundingly voted down the proposed legislation. In Wisconsin, more than 530,000 signatures were required to force a recall, and the collection could not begin until 60 days before Walker’s one-year anniversary in office. As summer turned to fall, “Recall Walker” bumper stickers and signs began to pop up statewide. Training sessions began for precinct organizers. Throughout the state, money from outside the borders poured in. In Madison, Walker and his allies continued pushing their legislative agenda. Federal funding for high-speed rail was sent back to Washington, as was as an $11 million grant to provide health care for the poor. $1.6 billion in state aid to schools was cut. A voter ID law was adopted. Keeping his campaign promise, Walker balanced the budget without raising taxes. Wisconsin’s economy remains troubled, though the state’s unemployment rate is below the national average. Job growth has been slower than in neighboring states, and nowhere near the rate necessary to meet Walker’s goal of 250,000 new jobs in four years. Democrats blame the slow growth on Walker’s budget-slashing, especially his cuts to education, and his fight with the unions. Republicans blame the protest movement for creating an unstable and uncertain political climate that is unfriendly to business. On January 17, recall organizers handed in 1.9 million signatures to force recall elections for Walker, Lieutenant Governor Kleefisch, Senator Fitzgerald and potentially a few other Republican state senators. The Democrats have yet to coalesce around a candidate, and a primary is likely this spring. State senator Kathleen Vinehout is considering a run, and Kathleen Falk, a county executive, has already declared. Milwaukee mayor Tom Barret, who was defeated by Walker in the 2010 gubernatorial election, is also mulling the prospect of running. Experts say more candidates are likely to emerge. Wisconsin is not accustomed to such political turmoil. “Up until about 15 years ago, Wisconsin had relatively mild party politics, with a lot of moderates in the state legislature who did most of the governing,” said Professor Burden, coauthor of Why Americans Split Their Tickets, a book on divided government. “That has changed. A major factor in that change is that polarization at the national level has trickled down to Wisconsin.” It remains to be seen whether Wisconsin-style recall elections will become a frequent feature of American politics.
While many expected a good deal of copy-cat behavior after the recall of Gray Davis, no Governor has faced a serious threat since then. Yet, there remains the potential for voters around the country to take a page from the Wisconsin playbook. “If the recall is successful,” said Susan Yackee, a political science professor at University of Wisconsin, “then we may see this type of protest form of political speech become more common across all American states.” Now Wisconsin plays host to one of the great political battles of American history, on the eve of a presidential election that will chart the nation’s course for years to come. The issues that will be captivating the nation this fall — workers’ rights, the role of government in healthcare and education, taxes, money in politics — are already center-stage in Wisconsin. “There’s going to be a ridiculous amount of advertising, most of it negative” said Professor Burden. “A lot of third party money is going to be coming in from groups that will operate independently of the campaigns.” Professor Burden sees Super PACs playing a large role in the recall, just as they will in the 2012 presidential race. The money raised by recall supporters so far – $1.48 million – has come almost entirely from within the state, with about 88% given by Wisconsinites. Walker has raised three times that much, with half coming from out of state. Both sides see the recall as crucial to overall party prospects in 2012. Ben Sparks, communications director for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, was unequivocal: “This recall will hand Democrats a resounding loss, right before voters head to the polls to reject President Obama’s failed liberal policies.” Mr. Zielinski, Communications Director for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, while not willing to venture a prediction, was quick to echo protester complaints: “[Walker] rules through division, he rules through this scorched earth policy that has never been seen here. There has never been a politician so divisive here. You would have to go back to the abolition era, and it seems like there was even more consensus then.” In 2008, Barack Obama carried Wisconsin with 56% of the vote, and the state has not voted for a Republican presidential contender since 1984, when it joined 48 other states in supporting Ronald Reagan. Wisconsin is still considered a swing state, though, where the margins of victory are usually slim. Many see the recall election as not only signaling the sway of the state’s presidential politics, but as a precursor to the nation’s election. Said Polman: “It’s like the Spanish Civil War to World War II.” Matthew Nussbaum is a freshman in Silliman College.
Spring 2012 I
13
National
It’s Still the Economy, Stupid By Noah Remnick
A
t the Republican Iowa caucus in January, vendors sold buttons featuring a variety of slogans. “Give Me Liberty, Not Debt,” read some. “Legalize the Constitution,” demanded others. The clashing slogans were more than just a memorabilia mash-up; they spoke, as well, of the perpetual vacillation during presidential election campaigns between the inescapable place of economic realities and the importance of ideological solidarity to the voters. The 2012 contest is a vivid illustration of how a campaign can swing between economic questions of employment rates, deficits, and trade, and ideologically charged “culture war” questions of abortion, marriage equality, and the place of religion in public life. There is no gainsaying the visceral importance of social questions –– in the 1980s, religious leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell certainly helped propel the Republican base to the polls for Ronald Reagan. Ultimately, however, historical evidence and political theory predict that this year’s election will depend, above all else, on the state of the economy and the way it is perceived by the American electorate. Right now, while Mitt Romney strains to reassure the base that, as governor of Massachusetts, he was “severely conservative,” and while Rick Santorum extols the supremacy of God’s law over the law of man and legislature, it is hard to remember that come this fall both parties will move toward the ideological center. But they will, and they must, if they hope to have any chance of winning, as the ideologically median voter’s preferred candidate is statistically bound to be elected in a two-party system. So while the clatter of slogans and sound bites might make it seem like there is a gulf between the two parties, by the time there are two candidates on the ballot, the ideological gap between them will have shrunk. And in the muddiness of that middle, empirical economic evidence sways the ideologically agnostic. Historically, the voting public tends to place complete responsibility for the state of the economy – good or bad – on the incumbent party. Voters do not sort through the nuances of thwarted policy initiatives, extant deficit burdens, or coincidentally favorable market conditions. They look at bottom-line numbers: the scale of unemployment, the rate of inflation, the number of housing foreclosures. So when the “dot com boom” propelled the country to dizzying prosperity in the mid 1990’s, President Clinton fully reaped the reward. Similarly, President Obama inherited a massive financial calamity that has come to define his term in office and that now threatens his electoral prospects this November. In modern presidential history, the two times that economic barometers plummeted during an election year, 1980
14
THE POLITIC
and 2008, the incumbent party faltered at the polls. Accordingly, the two times that the economy flourished, growing by more than 6 percent in 1944 and 1972, the incumbent party scored a compelling victory. Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Truman were able to win despite recessions earlier in their terms due to favorable economic trajectories, which voters tend to embrace during elections. Even when a moderate downturn emerges, as it did in 1992, even a popular president, like George H.W. Bush, becomes vulnerable. As a result, any upturn in the economy bodes well for Obama in 2012, not only because people often vote with their wallets, but also because voters are profoundly risk averse. If they don’t feel a looming threat to their economic security, they prefer a known leader and familiar policies. Since 1792, the incumbent or his party has re-captured the White House two out of every three elections. Obama already has benefited from recent upticks in certain economic domains. After the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a favorable jobs report in February, polls showed a bounce of four percent in his approval rating. Obama was buoyed again in the polls in mid-February, just as the Gross Domestic Product was inching up, and General Motors – a company that a year ago Obama pulled from the brink of extinction with a government bailout plan – posted its largest profits ever. Economic indicators have improved enough that some forecasting models that gave Obama a 40 percent chance of winning last fall now put the President’s chances of re-election at 60 percent. Speaking about the economy and efforts to improve it, however, does not generate the same positive outcome in the polls. Obama delivered a major speech on the economy in Kansas on December 6, 2011 in which he struck a populist chord and condemned the supply-side economics of his Republican opposition. Following that widely covered speech, there was no corresponding improvement in his approval rating. Obama saw a similar stagnancy in his approval rating after his State of the Union address. People apparently don’t want to hear about economic recovery; they require actual evidence of it. Although some decry the voting public as intellectually lazy for ignoring economic ideology and focusing on numbers alone, voter responsiveness to quantifiable economic trends has the positive effect of forcing the president to work towards actually improving the economy through effective policy, rather then just employing political rhetoric to sway voters. If the economy continues to improve in the months leading up to the election, the Republicans are likely to shift tactics and start emphasizing ideological differences with the
National
president – a strategy designed both to rally the base and to divert the attention of uncommitted voters away from positive news. After all, elections aren’t about achieving consensus or governing. They are about winning. Republicans are going to hew to whichever strategy seems most beneficial at the moment, whether it’s focusing on ideology or economic realities. The Democrats will do the same. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up this sentiment best when he told the National Journal in October 2010 that his main priority was beating Obama – not improving the economy or protecting the country from national security threats, but beating Obama. Ideology plays a larger role in the primary process. In early February 2012 the Republican contenders appeared before the Conservative Political Action Conference convention in Washington, D.C. to win the organization’s stamp of approval. Conscious that his moderate positions in his past leave him vulnerable to conservative critics, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, met privately before the event with conservative leaders to reconnect with the loyal base. During the primary campaign, Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, and Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, have pounded Romney as a Massachusetts moderate, citing his one-time support for legalized abortion and the statewide universal healthcare law he added to the statue books. To shield himself from such attacks, Romney has shifted to the right to curry the median Republican voter, promot-
ing himself as adamantly pro-life and a successful, fiscally conservative businessman. Romney clearly understands the importance of political centrism, both within the party and in a general election. Apparently, so do the members of CPAC. They backed Romney, even though other candidates had more faithfully conservative bona fides. This endorsement, now a blessing, will become his bane. Post-primaries, Romney will have to appeal to very different middle-of-the-pack voters, and the Democratic Party will paint him as someone who panders to the voters by flip-flopping on the issues. Santorum would fare no better in this regard since he staked out a staunchly conservative position throughout the campaign that Democrats are sure to exploit among uncommitted, centrist voters. The 2012 election is whipsawing already between economic issues and the emotional rhetoric of abortion, contraception, marriage, and religion. Now that the economy is in tentative stages of recovery, the opposition candidates have shifted the discourse to ideological issues. Should the economy once again stumble as a result of a Greek default or rising gas prices, the Republican focus will likely return to the economy. Regardless of buttons, slogans, Republican rhetoric, or the political football of choice, the numbers indicate that economic realities will dominate the voters’ choices, as they always have. Noah Remnick is a freshman in Saybrook College.
Spring 2012 I
15
National
Yellow Journalism of the 21st Century The Casey Anthony Complex By Justin Schuster
W
e live in an era of media sensationalism. From the courtroom to the campaign trail, inflammatory rhetoric and opinion based journalism is disguised as non-biased reporting. Fox News’ slogan - “We report. You decide.” - pays ironic homage to a style of reporting from days long past – or perhaps that never were. The amorous courtship of media and pundits is hardly a new phenomenon; it conjures memories of the media’s notorious influence just before the 1898 Spanish-American War. Today the USS Maine conjures images not of the war but of yellow journalism – offshoots of which can be seen today. Perfected by Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, yellow journalism sensationalized stories, exhausted scandals, and captured the public with attentiongrabbing headlines and pictures. One apocryphal story claims that Hearst remarked, “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” With its head-turning appeal, yellow journalism, like ancient Helen of Troy, launched a thousand ships – to the Cuban harbor that is.
Since the days of Pulitzer and Hearst, journalists and intellectuals have debated the role of reporting. Walter Lippmann and John Dewey encapsulate the two schools of thought surrounding early modern journalism in the twentieth century. A writer unparalleled and a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient, Lippmann represented the camp of elitism journalism. Positing that “the public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues,” he defended a model of journalism that distilled news and interpreted it for the masses. For Lippmann, the journalist was the voice and the mind of the news. In contrast, the philosopher and American intellectual John Dewey advocated for an unbiased media. Unlike Lippmann, Dewey demonstrated a fundamental confidence in the ability of the masses to interpret news. Discussion among the populace would form a marketplace of ideas that would highlight the best ideas. Today’s journalism is Lippmann’s vision taken to a devastating
Lippmann and Dewey represent two camps in journalism; while Lippmann wanted the journalist to interpret events for the masses, Dewey advocated for an unbiased media.
16
THE POLITIC
National
extreme. Though Lippmann defended journalism with significant competition in the digital battleground, journalism has shifted interpretive license, even he would be slightly repulsed by the status towards provocative and controversial thought pieces. In order to quo. Enlightened journalists have been replaced with a constant combat a hemorrhaging audience, mainstream media has turned inundation of opinions. What accounts for this neo-Lippmanism? towards opinion journalism as the new frontier. There are three factors: the 24-hour news cycle, twenty-first century We see the confluence of these forces playing out in the Casey technologies, and intense economic pressure on the media. Anthony case this past year. In May of 2011, 22-year-old mother CNN introduced the world to 24-hour television news Casey Anthony was tried for the first-degree murder of her twocoverage upon its launch in 1980. Shortly before this moment, year-old daughter Caylee Anthony. For six weeks, the prosecution Ted Turner presented his station by famously saying, “We won’t tore through the defendant’s troubled past, her salacious activities be signing off until the world ends. We’ll be on, and we will cover immediately after her child’s disappearance, the gruesome details the end of the world, live, and that will be our last event.” 24-hour of young Caylee’s death and every dimension of her family history. news coverage has radically reshaped how people view the world. After a trial where CNN’s Headline News (HLN) achieved its most Its impact was first felt in the first Gulf War, and later on with watched hour in network history with 5.205 million viewers when the failed Ranger Task Force in Mogadishu and the atrocities in the verdict was read, Casey Anthony, dubbed the “Tot Mom,” was the Balkans. 24-hour news has acquitted of all felony charges. made it such that no event goes Described by Time magazine as uncovered. Moreover, the CNN “the social media trial of the ceneffect suggests that 24-hour news tury,” this trial gave HLN its best significantly influences a country’s ratings month in the channel’s foreign policy. As discussed by 29-year-old history. However, in Steven Livingston in his book a case where the defendant was Clarifying the CNN Effect, 24guilty until proven innocent, a hour news has the power to national outrage exploded in the shape, impede and accelerate a wake of the verdict, fueled by the country’s foreign policy via public ratings-hungry media. opinion. Standing at the vanguard of Whereas 24-hour news this media inquisition was HLN’s has revolutionized the viewer’s Nancy Grace. Glenn Calvin of access with respect to time, new the Vancouver Sun argued that technology has transformed news Grace “almost single-handedly in terms of space. Internet, and inflated the Anthony case from more specifically social media, a routine local murder into a has redefined a generation by national obsession.” With daily creating unprecedented levels of attacks against the “Tot Mom,” interconnectivity. The uprisings in a term she coined, Grace rivaled the Arab World demonstrate how “This Casey Anthony Complex reveals worrying patterns Anthony for national attention, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube affirmed by her appearance on of American behavior and also distorts the public can galvanize the youth, but these understanding of the reality of the criminal justice system.” ABC’s Dancing with the Stars just new technologies are also instruthree months after the verdict. mental for a new era of reporting. CNN’s iReport has resulted While entertainment encroaching into news is disturbing, in a new trend of citizen journalism. This initiative, which solicits journalists rivaling their stories for media attention can be flatpictures, videos and reports from people around the world of out dangerous. In an era of opinion journalism, journalists have breaking news events, is made possible largely due to social media. a vested interest in being right and being unique. A journalist or At the benefit of instant, first-hand news, it comes at the cost of pundit’s voice has sway, and when the news breaks the proverbial trained and professional reporting. fourth wall; real people are affected by ratings-driven stations. One Finally, the news outlets are beginning to encounter financial thing differs greatly between Lippmann’s vision of the news and challenges as they compete with free online sources and struggle that of today, which is that Lippmann’s premise hinged upon a through a recession. Pressed to sell, the medium has become fundamentally enlightened reporter. Far too frequently today intelelectronic and the content has become streamlined. In this rapid lectualism loses out in the war of ratings. The media’s exploitation digital age, patrons of the news have moved toward digestible of the Anthony trial is inherently troubling; however, what is more information: news that is concisely presented, the significance disturbing is the potential it has to pervert the judicial system. explained and rife with opinion. As a consequence of increased Regarding Anthony’s acquittal, UCLA forensic psychiatrist Dr. Spring 2012 I
17
National
Carole Lieberman, said, “The main reason that people are reacting so strongly is that the media convicted Casey before the jury decided on the verdict. The public has been whipped up into this frenzy wanting revenge for this poor little adorable child. And because of the desire for revenge, they’ve been whipped up into a lynch mob.” Opinions have no place outside of their courtroom lest their influence be felt in the jury room. Although the national media can be blamed for elevating the Anthony trial to the degree that it did, partial onus of this media circus must be placed on the American public. The story featured every element that resonated with the macabre chords of a dramafixated society: young, pretty girl, dysfunctional family, murder and mystery. Dick Wald, professor of journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former ABC News president said, “we are a society of people who look for novels in our general appreciation of life.” Saying that we look for novels is putting it kindly. One woman when interviewed about the Casey Anthony verdict by Geraldo Rivera enthusiastically remarked, “This
“What has greatly risen in frequency in recent years has veered away from human-interest; it is the blurring of the line between entertainment and American jurisprudence.” is better than ‘Jersey Shore!’” Lament the day the American judicial system was compared to reality television. It would be one thing if the Anthony trial generated a groundswell of attention to missing children or troubled relationships. Granted, in some states “Caylee’s Law” has gained momentum. This law would impose stricter requirements on missing persons reports. However, such efforts have been local and neglected by a disinterested media and a fickle populace. In the period following the verdict, the fixation with Casey Anthony has become unabashedly shallow, following her wardrobe, book deals and pornography offers. This Casey Anthony Complex reveals worrying patterns of American behavior and also distorts the public understanding of the reality of the criminal justice system. Over the past decade and a half, more than sixty people have been executed per year. Though by no means should one belittle the terrible tragedy that befell Caylee Anthony, the trial of Casey Anthony is far from an accurate vignette of the American judicial system. The media attention devoted to this case is horribly misrepresentative and an affront on the American judicial system. TMZ should not be the face of criminal reporting. “A pretty blond girl dies somewhere in a resort island in the Caribbean, and the whole world gets fascinated,” notes Professor
18
THE POLITIC
Wald, but “you have to be blonde and pretty.” It is tragic, but it sells, and the bottom line has all but consumed the media. The public is fixated with these human-interest stories to the extent that they have become a predictable mold, and the media has been capitalizing. The media will continue to tug on the heartstrings of Americans through these human-interest stories until the cows come home. To an extent, an element of human-interest is necessary in the media to remind the viewership of the consequences of events. However, what has greatly risen in frequency in recent years has veered away from human-interest; it is the blurring of the line between entertainment and American jurisprudence. The United States is caught in a nasty positive feedback loop: Americans crave glitzy stories, and the media is all too eager to provide what the people want. Through the 24-hour news cycle, twenty-first century technologies and economic hardship for the media, the resurgence of opinion-based journalism has perpetuated this cycle. By capitulating to public interest, the media has skewed the judicial process and jeopardized its integrity through its opinion-based sensationalism. The media has shown that it can determine elections, most clear during this campaign season in the era of the Super-PAC, and for decades politicians have had to work the media in order to win the election. However, the courtroom is no game, so leave the opinions to those twelve in the box. Justin Schuster is a freshman in Branford College.
“The media attention devoted to the Casey Anthony case is horribly misrepresentative and an affront on the American judicial system. TMZ should not be the face of criminal reporting.”
National
Dodd-Frank and the Fiscal Crackdown An Interview with Karen Petrou Conducted by Will Jordan
Karen Petrou is the Managing Partner of Federal Financial Analytics, a private company that provides analysis and advice on regulations affecting the financial industry in the U.S. and abroad. She speaks frequently to government officials and financial industry trade groups about regulations and their impacts. She has also appeared in various media outlets, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Before co-founding the firm in 1985, Ms. Petrou worked as an officer at Bank of America.
The Treasury Department still has to write many of the rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. The Politic: Could you explain you recommendations from your recent report, “A New Framework for Financial Regulations,” in simple laymen’s terms? KP: I could try. It is a report aimed more at those of us who labor in these mills, but the real point is to cut through all of the battles over Dodd-Frank and financial reform. At the very end I say that I think that regulation has to serve two fundamental purposes: to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. And social engineering, financial market engineering, and many of the much more complicated goals that the new regulatory framework seeks to meet may well be also worthwhile but they’re so complex and untried. There is often no academic research or market history for those goals and doing them all at once is not only risky — the complexity risk I talk about — but is also a serious distraction from those two fundamental purposes of protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. The Politic: Overall, do you think that Dodd-Frank is a successful piece of legislation? KP: We have no way to know. I do think it has some important remedies in it, but it is so complicated. It is sixteen titles, a
few thousand pages that sought to do many things all at once, often prompted by little more than panic or a not unreasonable desire to punish financial institutions. I don’t think there is any way to judge the law until it’s fully implemented, has been in place and then does or doesn’t appropriately address the next financial crisis. The Politic: Do you think we know enough to say what the best part of the legislation was? KP: I think the best part is the effort to craft a systemic regulatory regime that is aimed at insuring big risky financial companies do not escape regulation by virtue of the charters they choose. Non-banks as well as banks may be regulated if they pose systemic risk. I also think that this is so far one of the least well executed parts of the law because we are heading into almost three years since it was enacted and the Treasury Department, which leads this effort, has yet to do more than issue three proposals contemplating various ways to do this. This is called the problem of shadow banking in which the more you regulate banks, the more activity simply moves into the “shadows” in hedge funds or other companies. When there is market demand for a service it will get done.
Spring 2012 I
19
National
The law requires the Financial Stability Oversight Council to name systemic firms and activities so that they are properly regulated, but two years after enactment it still has not named any. I think that that is an urgent priority. It’s complex, as it requires defining what systemic is, but I think two years is enough time. They should do it. The Politic: Do you think that if this legislation is well executed it could solve the problem of the “too big to fail” bank? KP: I do, and that’s one of the focuses in the paper. I think in Title II of the law is a very robust end to “too big to fail,” and I think we need to spend a lot more time being sure that is fully in place and as tough as the law allows it to be. I think some of the other pieces in the regulatory framework that are designed to penalize institutions for being “too big to fail” are unnecessary, and their destructive effects need to be worried about. The Politic: You recommend new attestation rules, forcing directors of these companies to sign-off on their firms’ risk. Do you think Sarbanes-Oxley, which required directors to attest to their company’s financial statements after the Enron scandal, was effective? KP: I do. The problem is when these attestations become too complicated. The people signing them do not understand what they are signing, and the attestation becomes meaningless. The attestation rules I talk about are different than the SarbanesOxley rules. It would apply to bank and financial boards for risk management related purposes, not for investor protection. They would also be simpler so that the boards were forced to really account for the risk their institution is taking. The Politic: Which country does financial regulation the best? KP: No country does financial regulation well. Right now, the financial industry in Europe is in a crisis. Many banks are highly leveraged with huge portfolios of sovereign debt, which is not in the best shape right now. We risk having an asymmetric result with the U.S. financial industry healthy and robust and the European industry increasingly nationalized. That cannot really work with our global financial markets, so you could see an increasingly regional system. The Politic: Did the regulations contribute to the European crisis? KP: No, I think the rules were fine. They just were not enforced, and the E.U. is now in the process of cleaning up its act, but it is a little late. For example, you can look at the so-called 20
THE POLITIC
stress tests European regulators conducted to gauge the health of major banks. The U.S. had similar tests that worked much better, because the U.S. stress tests were more stringent than the European ones. I think I probably used the word fictitious, because the stresses were not severe, and the capital criteria against which the stresses were judged were very generous. Furthermore, the European stress tests were not disclosed, so we really had little idea what they showed, just that all the banks passed. There was one bank, Dexia, which passed the stress tests and was rated strong, and then soon after failed and had to be bailed out. The Politic: What about the financial industry in China? KP: I think it is very risk because they are ill-regulated and often engaged in highly speculative activity. It has less potential for negative consequences because the Chinese currency is not freely convertible and despite the size of the Chinese economy ,it is still a very emerging player in global financial markets in contrast to Europe. But I do not view it as a negligible concern. The best research I have read is agnostic about the risks.
“I think that regulation has to serve two fundamental purposes: to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent.” The Politic: What do you think is the future of the financial industry? KP: I do not know. I think the industry is relatively strong now. The risks are because the industry is rebuilding. It is far from robust; it is just better. And as long as the economy is fragile and the global financial system is at risk to systemic shocks particularly in the E.U., no one can rest easy. I do not think that the industry is too big now, but I think the compensation is wrong. The best college students are going into finance instead of other industries. But I do not know how to social engineer a fix to that. I do not know if you can say these people are just too rich. The Politic: Do you have any books or movies you’d recommend about the financial crisis? KP: Sure, I recommend All the Devils Are Here. It’s a lively book and a good read, but still with a lot of substance. It doesn’t give a solution, though; it just tells the story. As far as a movie, Margin Call was actually really good. Will Jordan is a junior in Branford College.
National
Hydrofracking Picking Up Steam Lots of Energy But Will It Leave Cracks in the Environment? By Scott Greenberg
I
n her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand describes Ellis Wyatt, an oil tycoon who had discovered how to produce oil from shale. She writes: “It was as if somebody had given a shot of adrenalin to the heart of the mountain, the heart had started pumping, the black blood had burst through the rocks… because blood is supposed to feed, to give life, and that is what Wyatt Oil had done.”
It is not a stretch of the imagination to claim that, writing over fifty years ago, Ayn Rand foresaw the eventual rise of hydraulic fracturing, also known as hydraulic fracking or hydrofracking. Although some of the particulars are off – hydraulic fracking primarily extracts natural gas from shale formations, although oil can sometimes be produced as well – Rand captures the excitement of a new energy industry bursting out onto the market. Natural gas extraction from shale formations is America’s fastest growing source of unconventional natural gas. Until fairly recently it was considered uneconomical to produce natural gas from shale resources, but hydrofracking and horizontal drilling technologies, combined with rising energy prices, have caused the industry to thrive. From 2006 to 2009, shale gas production grew by an average of 48% per year, and it now ac-
counts for at least 14 percent of U.S. natural gas supply. Each year, the amount of recoverable shale estimated to lie below the United States grows. Two of the biggest shale formations – the Marcellus Shale, stretching from West Virginia to New York, and the Barnett Shale, under north Texas – have acted as economic stimulus, creating millions of barrels of gas, thousands of new jobs, and reviving manufacturing industries. By 2035, shale gas production is expected to increase almost threefold and provide nearly half of America’s natural gas. Many see hydrofracking and shale gas as the path to U.S. energy independence, a domestic source of energy with less volatile prices than those of foreign oil. Yet Rand’s metaphor of black blood is unintentionally instructive in the negative sense. The energy of the fledgling shale gas industry has been blunted by the concerns of environmentalists: water contamination, radioactivity, and carcinogens, to name a few. Hydrofracking has become a case study of what happens when economic prosperity and environmental sensibilities clash. On first glance, hydrofracking seems like a practice that environmentalists would embrace. After all, natural gas is a relatively clean source of energy, emitting less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, and shale gas is at the forefront of natural gas extraction. However, the environmental concern with fracking is even more basic, dealing with the age-old worry over water pollution.
Natural gas prices have fallen in recent years due to an increase in supply. Spring 2012 I
21
National
The supply of natural gas trapped in shale is currently extracted through methods that threaten the environment. The fluid used to hydrofrack 10,000 feet below the ground, after it enters the wells and rises again to the surface, is known as flowback. Though flowback consists mostly of water and sand, it often contains carcinogens and radioactive elements. Flowback is usually reused or stored in pits or tanks before it is disposed of, and many environmentalists claim that the harmful chemicals tend to leak from wells, pipelines, and storage areas into the water supply and the surrounding environment. While many have horror stories to tell of gas companies causing physical illness and water pollution – legal cases have sprung up over Pennsylvania - the empirical evidence remains tenuous. The EPA is set to complete a study in 2012 regarding “any potential impacts of hydraulic fracking on drinking water and groundwater,” but until then, any scientific conclusion remains uncertain. Even if the EPA finds sufficient reason for government action, it remains to be seen what type of regulation ought be imposed and who should make the decision – federal, regional, state, or local authorities. The federal government is currently precluded from effectively regulating the indus22
THE POLITIC
try. The Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974 empowers the Environmental Protection Agency to set maximum levels and regulate the use of contaminants that pose a health risk if added to public water systems. However, the law was amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to exclude hydraulic fracking from being regulated. This amendment, known as the Halliburton Loophole, was heavily advocated for by Dick Cheney, Vice President at the time, and has not been repealed. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) has introduced the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, or the FRAC Act, to repeal the Halliburton Loophole, but it has not yet been passed. Even if the federal government possessed the full power to regulate shale gas companies, the burden of regulation would still fall largely on the states, as it does currently. The EPA often depends on states to carry out federal regulations and adopt standards at least as stringent as national ones. Every state with significant shale formations has regulatory agencies to oversee fracking, and states have taken markedly different approaches to regulation. The legislature of New Jersey, a traditionally environmentally conscious state, voted
National
to ban fracking altogether – a symbolic gesture, given that New Jersey has no shale resources – but was vetoed by Governor Chris Christie. As of the fall of 2011, New York state regulators are considering lifting a longstanding moratorium on hydrofracking, in part due to pressure from the energy industry. Of particular interest are the regulatory policies of Pennsylvania, a state where hydrofracking is legal but regulated by the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (BOGM) under the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, as well as other state laws. BOGM requires all oil and gas well operators to detail water management plans, provide a list of what chemicals are used, draft contingency plans for possible contamination, and follow detailed standards for the storage and disposal of waste and flowback. It is responsible for investigating all claims of water pollution within 45 days and holding producers responsible for any water contamination within 1,000 feet of a well and up to six months after drilling. BOFM employs around 200 regulators and conducts around 5,000 inspections every year. Yet much regulatory power is held by Pennsylvania local governments because of their ability to zone; the state legislature is moving to standardize the rules. Any set of hydrofracking regulations must fall within the wide expanse between a ban and a free-for-all – but where? The threat of litigation over damages from hydrofracking
may not be enough: corporations do not always respond rationally to the threat of future legal action, pursuing overly risky actions for profit today. However, additional government regulations decrease the profitability of natural gas companies, raise energy prices, and may kill jobs. Unfortunately, we do not know enough to conduct a robust cost-benefit analysis, and regulators must take their best guess at the right level of regulation. The proper authority to regulate hydro-fracking is a much more clear-cut question: there is no justification for treating the practices of the natural gas industry as a federal issue. The health concerns of hydrofracking are regional, pertaining to the communities close to gas wells. Based on the experience of Pennsylvania, allowing individual localities to regulate hydrofracking leads to an unstable business climate, but different states – with different geological formations, communal needs, and priorities– ought to devise their own regulations of the industry. Those states with looser regulations would have to answer to their citizens; those with overly tough regulations would lose out on the opportunity to participate in the great natural gas boom of the 21st century. Scott Greenberg is a freshman in Ezra Stiles College.
“While many have horror stories to tell of gas companies causing physical illness and water pollution – currently, legal cases have sprung up over Pennsylvania - the empirical evidence remains tenuous.”
Spring 2012 I
23
Features
The State of the Union A Conversation with Eliot Spitzer Conducted by Deena Gottlieb Eliot Spitzer was elected New York Attorney General in 1999. As Attorney General, Spitzer prosecuted Wall Street executives for a range of financial crimes. He increased the profile of his office and pushed for political reform, drawing controversy for his unconventially aggressive tactics. In 2006, Spitzer easily won the New York gubernatorial election. He came into office promising major reforms, but ran into opposition from entrenched interests in Albany. Since resigning as governor in 2007, Spitzer has appeared in various media outlets.
The Politic: What do you think is the most important issue facing the nation today other than the economy? ES: I think the deepest issue is the decline of the middle class. I’m not sure this is an economic issue; I think it is a social issue. The creation of the middle class was perhaps the greatest accomplishment, or one of the greatest accomplishments, of the past 80 to 100 years in American society: we permitted wealth to accrete to not just those in the top of the social spectrum. 24
THE POLITIC
What we’ve seen over the last 20 or 30 years, unfortunately, is a reversal of that trend. Middle class incomes are dipping, income distribution is getting less equal, and the more egregious elements of the problem, which is the wealth creation at the very top, are staggering and akin to what we would have seen in the Gilded Age or earlier times in history which we would look back on as an appropriate social contract. So I think figuring out how to maintain the dynamism of capitalism while somehow buttressing the role of the middle
class is the greatest challenge. The Politic: What are some concrete steps you could take to help the middle class? ES: Much of it has to do with intellectual capital, I think—somebody at Yale, you understand. Looking at the world around us, the twin realities of globalization and technology mean we are competing in a different world and on a very different playing field than we were 50 years ago. We cannot take it as
Features
a given that American manufacturing, or American creativity, or American innovative skills will necessarily be better, faster or more astute than those that dominate in the rest of the world. The only way to stay ahead is to change, and to study, and to get smarter. The intellectual capital that will differentiate us is where we need to invest, and that is what our great universities hopefully are doing. The more deeply into our society that we can extend those skills the better off we’ll be. The Politic: What are the most important skills for Americans to learn? ES: I think innovation. Anything that can be repeated can be done elsewhere. Anything that is repetitious, that is rote process, will have a pressure for it to migrate to some other part of the world. Therefore, where we need to be most nimble is in our capacity to continuously see what is changing and adapt to it. The Politic: What do you see as the priorities for New York? ES: I think New York is fortunate that we have New York City. New York City is unlike any other city in the nation, it is a center of dynamism, intellectual ferment, and the destination of virtually all young, talented, progressive, and ambitious people. So if we agree that intellectual capital is what drives economic growth and will make any urban area succeed, New York will continue to get that inflow of great human talent, both domestic and international. So we are in a pretty good state. Even if you believe that New York City has the inflow of human talent, we still have a housing shortage; we still have infrastructure problems; our K-12 educational system is not what it can be and must be, our public higher educational system must be improved.
Those are things we need to look at. The rest of the state needs to refocus on a business model. While in office, I was trying to use higher education and the web of public higher educational institutions and private higher educations institutions as an economic driver, which I think can work, but it will take some doing. New York City, extended up the Hudson and Long Island, the suburban ring, is still and will continue to do well economically because of what we talked about, but the non-downstate part of New York State has a deeper problem. The Politic: What do you think is missing in our current financial regulation? ES: What is missing is still an element of balance between the risk that can be undertaken by major institutions and their actual exposure to that risk. And by that I mean that when you have too big to fail institutions that are overtly guaranteed by the federal government, the tendency and incentive is for them to undertake risks and lending practices that will be excessively risky for those whose guarantee is at stake—the taxpayer—and not sufficiently balanced by those who are making the decisions. And the reason for that is that we have a system where we guarantee their risk and they manage to maintain the upside profit. That is why Paul Volker wanted to eliminate proprietary trading from entities that have a federal guarantee and why some effort to do that is underway to do that but we have not gone far enough in that process. The Politic: A lot of the rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform have yet to be written. If you were a regulator, what would be your priorities in writing them? ES: I think that it’s simplicity. I am a believer that rules should be eas-
ily enforced and fairly understood by both those who have to play by them and those who enforce them. Simple principles are better than a multitude of very arcane, hard to understand
The intellectual capital that will differentiate us is where we need to invest, and that is what our great universities hopefully are doing. The more deeply into our society that we can extend those skills the better off we’ll be. guidelines. Now, that isn’t always possible in a context where you are making tough judgment calls. In the context of proprietary trading, for instance, the Volker rule is a very complicated rule. So simplicity is one. Next, I would have preferred to see some greater effort to restore a more stable retail banking system, where we separated commercial and investment banks. I think they are very different entities. One deserves and often requires a federal guarantee—certainly the depositary functions played by institutions. We want savers to feel comfortable, so there you want a guarantee. You don’t want that guarantee in the investment banking side of the business. Finally, I would have preferred to see some greater limits on scale, because I think size alone begins to become hazardous to the health of the financial system. And those are all potentially throwbacks to the environment we had when we had relative banking stability between the New Deal—or the Depression, which led to the creation of the New Deal rules—and the bubbles
Spring 2012 I
25
Features
of the past decade. Obviously those principles become more complicated when they are drafted into particular rules. Nonetheless I would say those would be good principles to use. The Politic: Where do you see the financial industry in 10 years? ES: I don’t pretend to be able to predict where things will end up. I think the natural ebb and flow in finance is such that the return to most of the major institutions has come down significantly from the period during which we have seen so many bubbles—credit bubble, housing bubble, internet bubble— which created a false return to capital in the finance sector. We have yet to understand exactly where the equilibrium point will be and have yet to restore finance to its proper and necessary role, which is aggregating capital and distributing it to sectors that will then deploy that capital productively. That is what finance needs to do. The underlying driver in the past decade has been more of a casino mentality, where risk was detached from the possible upside reward that it produces capital. The Politic: How would you evaluate President Obama’s first term? ES: I think he was handed, and I think history will acknowledge this, about as bad a set of cards one can imagine: we were dipping into what was almost a depression, and there was no easy answer to restore our economic stability. So as of now, I think people can look at several significant accomplishments. One, he stabilized the economy, and there is some marginal trend to job growth even though I said the issue of wages and middle class income is still a very deeply troubling backdrop. Still, he stabilized the economy and stopped what was a dramatic free fall. He passed a healthcare bill that was obviously fraught with tension, con-
26
THE POLITIC
flict, and controversy, but it will extend healthcare to millions of Americans. That is definitely an accomplishment. He has done well on the international scene in terms of confronting terrorism and the challenges that we face from nontraditional state players. The success when it comes to the Middle East or the relationship with Russia or the relationship with other countries— such as Pakistan and India—is more ambiguous clearly, but certainly the success when it comes to al Qaeda, bin Laden, and nontraditional threats to the nation has been quite good. I think those three accomplishments are quite a meaningful argument for him to say, ‘ok guys’ given where I began this isn’t so bad; I think I’ve earned a second term. I think he has a winning mark. The Politic: Looking at the Republican primaries, do you see a new direction for the Party? ES: Well, I still think that it’s likely that Mitt Romney is the nominee. It’s been a messier process for him than he wanted, obviously. There have been a number of Republican alternatives, each one of whom have had a moment, from Rick Perry to Michelle Bachmann to Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich, now it’s Rick Santorum. I don’t know if at the end of the day, any one of them can capture as large a piece of the Republican Party as Mitt Romney. The problem Romney has is that I see at least three different pieces of the Party that are vying for leadership. One is the libertarian piece of the Party, which is the Ron Paul faction. Another is the social conservative faction, which is Rick Santorum. Then you have the more traditional corporate conservative piece of the Republican Party, which is somewhat more moderate on some of the social issues and somewhat more pragmatic on some of the economic issues, and it’s basically the party of corporate leadership and
business. Those three do not fit easily together. Mitt Romney is very much a product of the left, which is why the libertarian piece of the Party is uncomfortable with him, and why the social conservative part of the Party is uncomfortable with him. But there is nobody out there who has withstood scrutiny who could appeal to all three of them, as of now at least. The Politic: Do you see the potential for a third party candidate in 2012? ES: Well, I don’t think we know yet if there will be a third party candidate of any great significance. The Libertarian Party occasionally makes noise about having a candidate. Whether that amounts to much if it’s not Ron Paul is open to question. I think the remaining candidates in the Republican primary field have been pretty clear that they will endorse whoever comes out of the Republican convention as the nominee. The Politic: Do you see anyone as the future of the Democratic Party—maybe a presidential candidate in 2016? ES: No—I hate to make predictions like that. I mean it could go seriously amiss. I think that the beautiful thing about politics is that there is always regenerative, ferment, lack of predictability. Nobody in 2003 could ever have predicted that Barack Obama would be the next president. The one thing I know is that there is absolutely no predictability to economics or politics, and that is what is both mysterious and exciting. The Politic: Given the massive stalemate in Washington and the personal attacks, how can we move back to a more effective government? ES: I think that much of the anguish
Features
right now reflects a deep ideological divide, and I don’t think people are mean or nasty or somehow angrier than they were either on Capital Hill or elsewhere. I think you have developments that really converge. One is a disagreement with Rawls and Keynes on one side of the aisle, and Nozick and Hayek on the other side—really quite a deep ideological divide. When you superimpose that on top of an economy that is no longer growing, politics gets angrier. That is what, I think, explains the tension right now. There’s always been an ideological debate about the size, role, and scope of government, and that is good and healthy—that is what we should have. But when that debate is superimposed upon a shrinking middle class with foreclosures that are off the charts,
with high unemployment, and people get angrier and shorter of temper, that tension is reflected both in every local election and in Washington as well. So I think we have the same ideological battles we used to fight now being exacerbated by an economic reality that is more difficult. There are many things that could be done outside of the economy, in terms of campaign finance, in terms of gerrymandering, or in terms of people of goodwill sitting down and working together. All of that is certainly what we want and hope for. Having said that, as long as the economy is floundering, things are going to be dicey.
ES: I think that is where their appeal seems to be deeper today than it was ten years ago. When the economy is growing, when there was a sense of confidence, when unemployment was low, when housing prices were going up, the Occupy Wall Street argument about income distribution would have had less traction. The anger at government articulated by the Tea Party would have been less appealing. So certainly, those two pieces of our political spectrum have a more fertile territory to work with when the economy is situated where it is today. Deena Gottlieb is a freshman in Morse College.
The Politic: Is the stagnant economy also the root of movements like Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street?
Spitzer believes the current financial system is, “missing an element of balance between the risk that can be undertaken by major institutions and their actual exposure to that risk.”
Spring 2012 I
27
International
New Player, Same Game By David Lawrence
T
he idea of a youthful new leader in North Korea tempts spectators to see a shot at reform. Playing to this perception, the Korean Central News agency recently released a photo of North Korean generals taking notes as the Great Successor Kim Jong Un discusses basketball. In 2012, South Korea will hold Presidential and National Assembly elections in the same year for the first time in its history, and South Korean voters are questioning the logic of containment. In contrast with the hardline policies of the current Lee Mung-Bak administration, with which the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) leadership appears unwilling to engage, South Korea’s progressive Democratic United Party advocates a return to a revised Sunshine Policy – and it’s quite likely that they will win both elections. While progressives believe easing containment might facilitate change in North Korea, lessons of the past guide many analysts to opposite conclusions. Disagreement stems from differing assessments of the positioning and interests of North Korea and China, and what outcomes best serve the United States’ interests. The first point of contention is North Korea’s level of willingness to open its economy and the inherent risk such 28
THE POLITIC
reform would pose to the regime. “I have perceived in talking to North Koreans about economic issues that they are pretty comfortable with opening up,” Dr. John Delury (ES ’97), a professor at Yonsei University, said during a phone interview from his office in Seoul. In North Korea’s participation in special economic zones such as Kaesong with South Korea, and in failed attempts to establish such zones in Rason (with Russia), and Sinuiju (with China), Delury finds the leadership willing to pursue a path towards gradual economic liberalization. Accordingly, Delury proposes increasing economic engagement with the DPRK, which he theorizes would soften the regime gradually into trading its nuclear program for economic security. Yet Professor Shi Yinghong of Renmin University in Beijing argues that unlike China’s leadership, Kim Jong Il and now Un’s regime do not believe that “a gradual and step-bystep (but serious) economic reform will reduce [instability] greatly rather than cause instability.” North Koreans “in fact have refused this advice [to pursue reform] over many years.” Stanford’s Professor Daniel Sneider offers a different explanation than Delury’s of North Korea’s exploration of market economics through special economic zones and other limited means. With the state-run ration system for food distribution
International
ineffective, the regime has had to rely on marketplaces to fill in gaps; however, “they fear the loss of social and political control that comes along with that” and have consistently pulled back from market-based solutions. While the DPRK’s leadership might flirt with a market economy in small ways, it has compelling reasons not to liberalize more significantly, or “open Pandora’s box” as Sneider puts it. When China and Vietnam opened their economies, they brought in foreign investment. For North Korea too this would be a necessary step. Yet, “with foreign investment comes the truth about what life is like across the border in the south.” Were North Koreans to gain awareness of South Korea’s lifestyle under a free market economy, the regime’s claim to be the truly legitimate leadership of Korea would weaken. The risk of information flow already poses grave concerns for the regime, especially during the current transfer of power. Soon after the death of Kim Jong Il, cell phone use during the 100-day mourning period for the Dear Leader was declared a war crime. Sneider says that in speaking with defectors he learned that smuggled DVD players and South Korean television dramas circulate underground in Pyongyang, and in his December 21st article on North Korea in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof observed that as police crackdown on smuggled videos, “a smuggled tape could mean the dispatch of an entire family to a labor camp.” Alan Romberg, Director of the East Asia program at The Stimson Center, agrees that the regime views substantial economic reform as incompatible with maintaining control: “few people believe that North Korean domestic policy can fundamentally change without a change in the system, which means a change in the regime.” Under Kim Jong Un’s leadership “it would seem even less likely than before that North Korea could handle the political fallout from serious economic reform. That doesn’t mean that they won’t try to tinker with the system a bit—as they have with markets over the years.” A separate contention arises over whether the offer of greater economic engagement by the United States and South Korea could coax the North to part willingly with its nuclear weapons program. Delury believes so, if that economic engagement were part of a process including security assurances, a revision of the United States’ extended nuclear deterrence that currently covers South Korea, a lifting of sanctions, economic assistance, cash reparation payments from Japan, and a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice. As for the armistice, “over the last few years, I’ve seen no readiness to deal with that on the American side or on the Korean side,” Delury adds. These steps are politically infeasible from the American security perspective. Even if the United States were willing to pursue this process, Delury admits that it would not guarantee complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the
North’s weapons programs. As Romberg asserts, the North Koreans “probably have other (undetectable) uranium enrichment facilities elsewhere, and they are unlikely to give up all nuclear devices (which they see as their assurance of effective deterrence).” So why does Delury want to try to increase economic engagement with the DPRK? His disagreement with some American analysts results from a differing prioritization of objectives: “I don’t share the basic goal that this is all about denuclearization…that’s not my starting point.” While denuclearization is a “key goal,” Delury’s top priority is “deep normalization of relations” that would hopefully entail denuclearization. In contrast, Mr. Romberg believes that there is a clear path towards denuclearization that the DPRK can choose to take, and that economic engagement is a tool to be used only when North Korea demonstrates “significant movement on the nuclear front.” Sneider agrees, mentioning Delury directly in warning that he (Sneider) has “no interest in rewarding” North Korea for their recent aggression, especially ahead of any “real movement towards denuclearization.” As to what movement on the nuclear front would warrant economic engagement, there is again disagreement. Sneider says there have been reports of recent discussions offering a freeze of specific nuclear programs for a resumption of U.S. food aid. Should the United States take such an offer as a sign that North Korea is serious about pursuing denuclearization? Some observers, such as Delury, would argue that this deal would be a positive step because it would delay the DPRK’s progress towards more sophisticated nuclear and ballistic capabilities while keeping it at the negotiating table. Delury considers deals where sanctions are loosened in exchange for commitments such as freezes and allowing inspectors in a good dynamic “that’s worked in the past.” Under President Clinton, the United States certainly made significant progress towards halting North Korea’s nuclear program by a gradual strategy of careful engagement. Other observers, such as Sneider, argue that the situation is different now and that a food for freeze trade is inadequate. With North Korea’s exploration of uranium enrichment in addition to its plutonium program, outsiders have had more difficulty determining whether North Korea is upholding its commitments. Speaking from the experience of his colleagues, Sneider asserts that “uranium enrichment is really, really hard to track and to verify that it’s not taking place. We know of only one facility, and we didn’t even know that it was there until they chose to show it to my colleagues here at Stanford. It’s really hard to be able to verify that, so that becomes very, very hard to roll back in a serious way.” Sneider predicts that “another freeze of the existing facility in Yongbyong” would merely result in “paying them something for a freeze that gets reversed within a matter of months.” Others argue that food aid to North Korea just frees up
Spring 2012 I
29
International
resources in either the military or the government to spend on non-food items, such as nuclear or ballistic missile programs. In a March 2011 article, Dr. Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics provides evidence for this connection: as food aid increased in the 1990’s, commercial imports decreased, and they have remained low since. Additionally, Dr. Noland notes that “in 1999, after the famine had ended, but aid from South Korea and the WFP [World Food Programme] continued to ramp up, the North Korean military went on a buying spree, purchasing among other things, the Kazakh air force.” As a freeze cannot be satisfactorily verified and food aid serves as an indirect subsidy to North Korea’s weapons programs, it is not clear that a food for freeze deal would delay North Korea’s progress in developing nuclear weapons. In Sneider’s thinking, such an offer thus does not represent “significant movement” in North Korea’s willingness to denuclearize, and would not warrant an increase in economic engagement. Sneider is also troubled that providing food aid without attaining an apology for the sinking of the Cheonan and the shelling of Yeonpyeong represents a failure to punish North Korea for behaving poorly, and instead constitutes an undeserved reward. Sneider does, however, provide a caveat to his argument against undeserved food aid. Targeted food aid that cannot be absconded by the military, such as nutritional supplements for children, should be allowed, Sneider believes, as it is North Korea’s regime, not its people who are at fault. Will the regime’s need for food aid ever be more pressing than its proliferation goals and fears about the domestic instability economic reform may entail? In the 1990’s, between 900,000 and 2.4 million North Koreans died of starvation. Tragically, this humanitarian crisis proved no barrier to the regime’s ability to maintain power. It would take an even greater food shortage for North Korea’s regime to be threatened, and it appears that China will never let North Korea reach such a point. China’s support of the regime seems likely to continue in the future. Instability can spread over entire regions, and an unstable North Korea poses a threat to China’s sense of national sovereignty. Conversely, Romberg observes: “as long as there is stability, North Korea remains a buffer state” for China to American or pro-American forces on China’s eastern border. Professor Shi agrees, but with different emphasis. Having North Korea as a buffer state is not China’s top priority, and neither is preventing international instability caused by North Korea nuclearization. To Shi, the most important benefit of a stable North Korea is avoiding the ramifications for China if North Korea loses internal order. Beijing fears that the resulting flow of North Korean refugees into China might cause domestic instability in northeast China. Koreans are the 12th largest of 55 designated minorities in China, and they are concentrated along the 880-mile
30
THE POLITIC
border with North Korea. In the case of significant instability in North Korea, millions would seek refuge in China – and China sees such an outcome as a severe threat to its sovereignty. In addition, a severely weakened and unstable North Korea without unified control might trigger Korean unification, renewing many old challenges and tensions for China. As a result of China’s interests, a denial of food aid by the United States is unlikely to motivate the regime to denuclearize. China will continue to provide limited food aid to North Korea to protect its own national interests, and the North Korean regime needs little food aid to maintain control. Moreover, South Koreans are likely to elect a leadership this year that will be more willing to offer North Korea food aid than the Lee Mung-Bak administration. If the United States does not provide food aid to North Korea, then China or South Korea will. In this context, the benefit of providing food aid is the U.S. keeps North Korea at the negotiating table to discuss a path toward denuclearization. Without this level of diplomatic engagement, there may be little hope for progress on any issue with the new leadership. Yet even this gesture contains risks. Unless the United States limits its food aid to the low quantities China would otherwise provide, it might indirectly fund the DPRK’s shipment of nuclear or non-nuclear military technology to Iran, Syria, or elsewhere. Avoiding the spread of nuclear technology remains a cornerstone goal of American foreign policy that trumps many other objectives. One remaining factor in whether the United States provides food aid is that the U.S. must maintain strong alliances with South Korea and Japan by demonstrating that our poli-
A view from predominantly Korean (57%) Tumen City in China to Namyang in North Korea. North Korean refugees often pass through Tumen, which has a detention center for captured refugees awaiting deportation to North Korea.
International
Kim Il-Sung Square in Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The square is named after the country’s founder. cies support their national interests and security. The United States must weigh the benefit of continued negotiations with Un’s regime against the possibility of undermining South Korea’s current hardline stance on food aid, and continue to communicate effectively with South Korea’s leadership. Yet, it is not clear that the United States can significantly influence North Korea in negotiations. China, which accounts for around 60% of North Korea’s total trade, maintains the greatest leverage over North Korea because it appears unwilling to let the regime fail. According to Sneider, unverified reports suggest China has offered large amounts of food aid and fuel supplies to ensure stability during the transition. Romberg suggests that because aid and support are even more important during a transition period, China has further strengthened its influence during the succession. How will China use its considerable and growing influence? China does not want North Korea to expand its military capabilities because this might trigger a regional arms race. Sneider notes that he has had “plenty of conversations with South Koreans, particularly conservative security policy makers,” who “want to at least talk about going nuclear.” If Japan were to develop nuclear weapons, which it could do rapidly, South Korea would likely follow. A scenario in which either country developed nuclear weapons would be a nightmare for China. To avert these possibilities, China wants North Korea to avoid irritating Japan. Yet, as Professor Shi points out, avoiding regional instability and nuclearization are less important to China than avoiding instability in North Korea. As noted succinctly by Romberg: “It is clear that China ranks stability above nuclear issues, even though it wants North Korea to denuclearize.” Thus, China will sacrifice opportunities to discourage North Korea’s nuclear program in order to protect
the existing regime to ensure North Korea’s internal stability. Pushing Pyongyang hard on denuclearization just isn’t worth the political capital to Beijing. As Sneider observes, “if the Chinese could choose, would they rather that North Korea not have nuclear weapons? Of course. But that cow is not only out the barn door but in the pasture munching away.” Chinese food aid for North Korea remains secure. China’s support of the regime, however, does entail a trade-off with avoiding long-term instability in North Korea. North Korea faces structural economic problems and the gradual, destabilizing inflow of information from the south and China’s semi-porous eastern border. As a result, and given the regime’s resistance to economic reform, an eventual regime collapse is a real possibility. Imagine what would have happened if China itself had not reformed but instead remained rigid for the last three decades, Professor Shi prompted. “The Chinese believe that the only path here is one of gradual reform and change in the north led by the existing regime,” says Sneider. Yet short-term stability remains top priority for China, and North Korea will likely put off reform as long as it believes it can sustain itself through dependency on China’s food aid. Still, China will push the regime to introduce gradual economic reform in North Korea, and will grow more insistent as the DPRK’s prospects for instability grow. The combination of China’s national interests and North Korea’s long-term instability pose significant risks for the United States. China may decide to ignore North Korea’s exports of nuclear technology to protect its leverage to incent the regime to pursue gradual economic reform. Sneider presents some frightening possibilities. “We don’t know…the extent of North Korea cooperation with Iran – but we know there is some. We know there’s plenty on the development of ballistic missiles. ...and uranium Spring 2012 I
31
International
enrichment. This is a case where the North Koreans may have done better than the Iranians, and they may be able to assist them back another way. That’s not a matter of minor concern in the United States. Is it a minor concern to China? I have yet to see any evidence that if it is a matter of concern for them, that they’re willing to do anything about it.” Professor Shi offers only a qualified disagreement: “At present, under the pressure of U.S., Saudi Arabia, and EU, I suppose that China is doing more to prevent any NK-Iran trade-off in the missile area if it falls into China’s field of obligation.” Sneider and Shi’s statements are reconciled by Mr. Romberg’s impression that, while China has been cooperating more than before on this issue, it is probably not enforcing inspections of DPRK shipments as thoroughly as it could. In net, the leadership change in North Korea may change little about the regional political dynamics. National interests endure, even as important individual players change. North Korea will likely continue to seek to extract aid without taking significant steps to denuclearize. It will prevent economic liberalization out of fear of its destabilizing effects, yet tolerate free markets to the extent necessary to gain the bare minimum of goods to sustain the regime. China will protect its domestic harmony by pursuing North Korea’s short-term stability to the detriment of its secondary goals of North Korea’s long-term economic reform, North Korea’s disarmament, and global nuclear containment. The United States may exchange food
aid for a nuclear freeze to demonstrate willingness to engage with the new leadership while continuing to demonstrate commitment to allies by maintaining 64,000 troops in South Korea and Japan, maintaining its nuclear umbrella over South Korea and Japan, and pressuring China to contain North Korea’s weapons exports. As the situation unfolds following Kim Jong Un’s ascent to power, each nation continues to face the same trade-offs, and no party has gained a significant advantage from Kim Jong Il’s death. Even Kim Jong Un’s fixation on basketball was inherited from his father, who fervently followed Michael Jordan’s career. In 2000, Madeleine Albright ended a summit by presenting Il with a basketball signed by the Chicago Bulls star. While Un may not have his father’s charisma, he seems to like the same diplomatic and athletic games his father favored. When asked whether Un would stand a chance in a basketball game against President Obama, Senior Political Scientist at RAND Dr. Andrew Scobell gave an ambiguous answer suited to the uncertain security environment: “It depends on the size of the court and who is refereeing.” David Lawrence is a freshman in Calhoun College. The interview transcripts with Mr. Romberg, Professor Sneider, Professor Shi, Professor Delury, and Dr. Scobell are available on The Politic’s blog at www.thepolitic.org.
Don’t expect fewer fouls from North Korea. 32
THE POLITIC
International
The Myth of China’s Rise An Interview with Minxin Pei Conducted by Raphael Leung Minxin Pei, Ph.D., is a professor of Government and the director of the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna College. He is a former senior associate with the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Pei was listed as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in a poll by Prospect magazine in 2008. His area of expertise is comparative politics and U.S.-Asia relations.
The Politic: For our readers that are unfamiliar with your stance on China, could you briefly explain why you do not think China will rise in the way some international relations theorists have predicted? MP: It is always very dangerous to rely on a country’s growth to predict its future. To prove this, we can take a look at two recent examples in the last century. Japan’s economy was growing rapidly in the late 1980s and was widely predicted to overtake the U.S. Instead, we saw two decades of stagnation. Same goes for the Soviet Union in the 1960s: rapid growth followed by stagnation. Second, demographic shifts and economic transitions must not be ignored. If you look at China’s population, you see a big demographic divide. The aging population in China means that there will be less cheap labor in the future. An aging country generally doesn’t grow rapidly. Also, China is going through transitions, quickly becoming the world’s largest exporter, but the amount of exports will ultimately be limited by technology and the size of the middle class. The Politic: At the beginning of this year, Ma Jing-jeou was re-elected as President of Taiwan. Some scholars have said that Ma’s efforts to improve cross-strait ties with China may present an obstacle for U.S. strategic interests in the region, one of the reasons being greater difficulty for the US to sell arms to Taiwan. What do you think the US’s role should be in dealing with BeijingTaiwan cross-strait relations for the next 4 years? MP: The U.S. should do for the next four years what it has done for the past four years, which is basically nothing. It is in the U.S.’s interest to allow China and Taiwan to further open up economic engagement with each other. The U.S. will not promote vertical dialogue anyway. If anything, the U.S. may decrease military deployment in the area. The Politic: You have mentioned how censorship has become harder as the online population grows and technology advances. With micro-blogging tools like Wei-bo proving increasingly popular, is the value of censorship to the Chinese government shifting? What do you think will happen to the Chinese government’s censorship?
MP: The Chinese government can do anything that is possible with regards to censorship. There has been some success for the Chinese government in censoring information, but it has not been 100% successful. Looking into the future, I foresee some censorship continuing, but certainly not blanket censorship over all things. As to the value of censorship itself, the value is still clearly present, but in face of technological advances, the value is ultimately quite limited. The Politic: Ever since the Arab Spring, there has been speculation about China’s Jasmine Revolution and prodemocracy uprisings. A recent FP cover story said 2012 will be a particularly bad year to be a Chinese dissident. Can you comment on the likelihood of a similar uprising in China? Do you see it happening in 2012 or the near future? MP: The thing about revolutions is that they are unpredictable. It would be foolish of me to say that there is a high or low likelihood of revolution. Revolutions are usually spurred by a unique combination of societal factors, which are hard to speculate on. These factors are also very uncertain. Factors that we believe will spur revolutions often end up having no effect at all. At least while the Communist Party is still in power for the next 10 to 15 years, it seems unlikely. The Politic: Some in the U.S. and E.U. worry that the Yuan will pick up the pace of internationalization and soon become a global currency possibly displacing the dollar. Are there grounds to that concern? MP: If it does happen, it will be good for the rest of the world. There are multiple benefits of the Yuan internationalizing: first it provides the market with more options. It would also most likely mean that the Chinese market will open up even further in a friendly way, allowing in investment and welcoming business. It is, however, not going to happen for some time and I don’t foresee drastic internationalization of the Yuan happening in the next 10 to 15 years. Raphael Leung is a freshman in Trumbull College.
Spring 2012 I
33
International
Revitalizing Turkey’s Future with its Ottoman Past By Allison Lazarus
S
ince the inception of its protracted European Union bid Ottoman Empire’s illustrious and powerful past, it provides in 2005, Turkey has scrambled to fulfill the requirements a near carte blanche for the regional growth of Turkish power. dictated by current E.U. member states, including human Turkey’s powerful re-entry has brought it into conflict with rights reform and far-reaching economic legislation. These more established regional powers like Iran. talks have recently ground to a halt, with dozens of issues This doctrine means that Turkey will creatively seek— left unresolved. While there is evident desire within certain and find—allies everywhere. The historical relationship parts of the E.U. (especially by Cyprus and France) to exclude between Turkey and its neighbors is likely to also have ecoTurkey, the reverse is also true – many domestic public opinion nomic implications. Turkey’s remarkable economic success polls show a diminished Turkish desire to participate in the makes it poised to serve as a shining example for the region. E.U. This backlash against E.U. membership has increased Other nations’ future emulation of Turkey’s free market since President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AK party, has entered system could also allow Turkey to assert its leadership in reits third term. But without the European Union, what is the gional economic organization. Its implicit role as a powerful future of Turkey’s foreign policy? economic model has begun to cause Ahmet Davutoglu, Erdogan’s friction with other powers, as when Foreign Minister, is the author of Iran’s Ayatollah recently called the Turkey’s distinctive and popular “zero exportation of its economic system problems with neighbors” policy, “unexpected and unimaginable.” which has formed the backbone of its Turkey has already begun to esforeign relations for the last decade. tablish regional trading blocs as far True to its name, the policy has sought away as Central Asia, focusing on to minimize conflicts with the nations Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. In its surrounding Turkey, referring to all overtures to these countries, Turkey of them as “neighbors” rather than has made efforts to appeal to a com“allies” and “enemies.” Though many mon Ottoman history, underscoring doubt the ultimate durability of this the longevity of its influence in the doctrine, it has expanded to the mediaregion and signaling a legitimate retion-based efforts that Turkey made on turn to its status as a regional great behalf of Israel and Palestine, coming power. near to brokering a peace agreement in Many of Turkey’s recent actions 2008. In some ways, this regional role indicate an impending break with Turkey is pursuing the doctrine of is reminiscent of how the Ottoman the West, including its feud with “strategic depth,” meaning that “Turkey Empire bridged the gap between East Israel and refusal to host U.S. troops will creatively seek - and find - allies and West, reconciling its client states overseas. But at the same time, these everywhere.” from both spheres. This new role as a policies seem necessary to preserve mediator could serve as the basis for a coherent foreign policy Turkey’s positive regional reputation among nations that are without the military hegemony of Ottoman times. virulently anti-Israel and ambivalent toward the West. Turkey Davutoglu himself provides major clues to the new wants to be a leader in the Middle East, and it recognizes that roles Turkish foreign policy will take on in his 2001 book to do so it must align itself politically with prevailing regional Strategic Depth. He defines “strategic depth” as a toolkit of opinion – and, perhaps, away from the European Union. fallback plans, with which a nation can rely on both internal It remains to be seen in what specific ways Turkey will (geographical) and external (diplomatic) resources in a mo- influence the Middle East, but its adherence to the doctrine of ment of need. Adding to more familiar Western constructs, “strategic depth” and its sense of continuity with the powerDavutoglu’s understanding of strategic depth encompasses ful Ottoman tradition promises Turkey a bright future. But historical relationships between peoples, not only current despite all the hoops it has jumped through in the past for politics. As a strategic concept, it proves much more valuable E.U. membership, its future will probably be outside of that than a definition limited to geography. This new understand- body. ing is what underpins and explains Turkey’s re-emergence as a regional power. If “depth” is to be understood in terms of the Allison Lazarus is a sophomore in Jonathan Edwards College. 34
THE POLITIC
International
A Tale of Two Revolutionaries The Antithetical Legacies of Václav Havel and Kim Jong-Il By Donna Horning
O
n December 18, 2011, history was provided with an odd coincidence that invites further reflection — the simultaneous deaths of Václav Havel, a dissident playwright, essayist, and poet who became the first President of the Czech Republic, and Kim Jong-Il, the former Supreme Leader of North Korea. Though their personal histories, political careers, and legacies are profoundly different, both men were self-proclaimed revolutionaries operating in the shadow of the former Soviet Union who left an indelible mark on their respective nations. Their diametrically opposed approaches to governance offer several lessons on leadership in times of harrowing political transition. Despite his privileged upbringing as the son of wealthy entrepreneurs and government ministers, Havel and his family were sequestrated and discriminated against as members of the “politically dangerous” class when the Communists took power in Czechoslovakia in 1948. His father was exiled from Prague for a time, and Václav was forced to leave school at age 15. After serving as a laboratory assistant and a minesweeper in the engineer corps, he became an acclaimed absurdist playwright, dealing especially with politically provocative themes. After the brutal repression of the Prague Spring
by the Soviets in 1968 he was banned from the theater and turned to full-time political activism, authoring the Charter 77 manifesto that criticized the Communist regime’s human rights abuses and founding the Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Prosecuted. He was an instrumental founder of reformist movements during the Velvet Revolution of 1989 including the Civic Forum, the entity that called for the final dismissal of top officials and comprehensive political reform. At the conclusion of the non-violent uprising, Havel was called to the presidency by posters plastered in Wenceslas Square with the slogan “Havel na Hrad!” (“Havel to the Castle!”), a post he accepted with humility. As president, Havel oversaw the peaceful dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the country’s division into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. Though not without controversy, on his death Havel was hailed as “a great European” by Angela Merkel (the current Chancellor of Germany) and “one of the great figures of the 20th century” by Madeleine Albright (a former US Secretary of State). James Pontuso, one of Havel’s biographers, credited the former president with “extraordinary determination, originality, irony, and humor” and attributed
Václav Havel and Kim Jong-Il: an exercise in contrasts. Spring 2012 I
35
International
his greatness to exemplifying “the highest and therefore the most difficult kind of moral behavior.” Havel’s 1978 essay, The Power of the Powerless, begins with the satirical words: “A specter is haunting Eastern Europe: the specter of what in the West is called dissent.” He continues to condemn pure ideology as a way of relating to the world, warning that it “offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them.” Havel was the embodiment of the nonconformist intellectual — a man for whom no authority was sacred and no price was too high to pay for the maintenance of his conscience. His unpresumptuous leadership style is manifest in one of his most famous assertions: “As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it.” Of course, on the Soviet Union’s eastern frontier, Kim Jong-Il’s cult of personality presented the Dear Leader as precisely the “source of the highest meaning in the world” and the “measure of everything.” According to the Associated Press, North Korean legend states that Kim Jong-Il was born on Mount Paekdu in 1942, a birth heralded in the heavens by the appearance of a double rainbow and a brilliant new star. Soviet records report that he was actually born in Siberia, 1941, but banal reality never stood in the way of Kim Jong-Il’s sordid 17-year rule. In stark contrast to Havel’s reluctant ascent to the presidency, Kim Jong-Il was groomed by his father for a political career predicated on monopolizing control of every branch of government. On his death, the Dear Leader was all at once the General Secretary of the Korean Worker’s Party, Chairman of the National Defense Commission, and Supreme Commander of the North Korean Armed Forces, the fourth largest standing army in the world. In recognition that Chinese-style reform of the Communist regime would be tantamount to political suicide (due to North Korea’s inevitable, unfavorable comparison with living conditions in South Korea), Kim Jong-Il presided over one of the most backward, oppressive dictatorships in modern history. The State Department reports human rights abuses including “arbitrary and lengthy imprisonment, torture and degrading treatment, poor prison conditions including starvation, forced labor, public executions, prohibitions or severe restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, movement, assembly, religion, and privacy, denial of the right of citizens to change their government, and suppression of worker’s rights.” North Korea is ranked second to last on the World Press Freedom Index (better only than Eritrea). In the early 1990s, despite a famine that ultimately killed between 900,000 and 2.4 million people, Kim Jong-Il pursued a costly and ruinous nuclear weapons program in violation of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. The first sentence of his obituary in the New York Times says it all: “Kim Jong Il presided with an 36
THE POLITIC
iron hand over a country he kept on the edge of starvation and collapse, fostering perhaps the last personality cult in the Communist world even as he banished citizens deemed disloyal to gulags or sent assassins after defectors.” History will not be kind to the Dear Leader. Individuals do not, and cannot, entirely shape the history of a nation — and yet, Václav Havel and Kim Jong-Il came about as close as anyone ever will, for better or worse. In times of political transition, a nation’s new institutions are malleable, inviting either innovation or exploitation. Havel guided Czechoslovakia from the depths of cold-blooded Communism and Soviet oppression to a nonviolent revolution and democracy, inspiring the rest of Eastern Europe to follow his superb example. Kim Jong-Il gained a stranglehold on power in a political entity that remains a twisted relic of the Cold War, subjecting his people to unimaginable suffering and drawing the ire of the international community. Let us only hope that the next leaders of Egypt, Libya, and Syria in their time of transition are of the Havel variety. Donna Horning is a junior in Davenport College.
International
Piecing Together the Middle East
An Interview with Christiane Amanpour
Conducted by Jacob Effron Christiane Amanpour is the Global Affairs Anchor of ABC News, as well as an Anchor and Chief International Correspondent at CNN. Her breaking news dispatches and in-depth pieces enlighten audiences around the world about the most important events of our time, including the Arab Spring, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the race for the White House. She is also an active member of the Committee to Protect Journalists and on the board of the International Women’s Media Foundation. Christiane Amanpour spoke with Yale students on February 6th about her views and experiences. The following are exceprts taken from her on-stage interview with The Politic. For the full transcript visit our website at www.thepolitic.org.
The Politic: There has been a lot of talk recently about a potential Israeli strike against Iran. The U.S is taking a more cautious approach and has instead been implementing economic sanctions. On the Colbert Report, you talked about the psychological warfare that has been taking place between the two countries. Could you talk a little more about that? CA: I believe that there is a lot of psychological warfare going on from all sides. What is incredible is that for the past 3035 years since the revolution, the United States has not had any diplomatic relations with the country that causes it some of the most challenges and problems, and which potentially could have been a partner and has been in the past. After 9/11, Iran helped, actually, in the transition from the Taliban to the democratic experiment there. At least since the early 90’s when the sanctions first began, there has been only one way of dealing with Iran. And that has been stick, stick, stick and no carrot meaning there have been only economic sanctions, and isolation in the hope that that would cause Iran to buckle. Now it hasn’t and we are now coming on ten or plus years on a policy that has failed. They are hurting, but it still hasn’t caused a change in behavior. But it is very unpopular in the United States, especially during a presidential election year, to talk about different measures such as incentives and potential, real negotiations such as trying to figure out this really severe problem in a way that could actually result in some fruitful change. The current strategy has not worked, so the question now is, will there be a military strike? It reminds me of the Iraq war where one set of sources were taken as the primary sources about the course of the war. There were many other voices who suggested that this war would not be as easy as some people were saying it would be. I would also say there is a very heightened level of tension and President Obama is under an enormous amount of pressure. Previous American Presidents have said that we will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Frankly, the Republican candidates have practically committed themselves to war if you listen carefully to what they have said during the debates. I also think though there are so many other voices who have said
that it is not possible to do it without a serious retaliation and even if it is done, it would at very best delay, but not destroy or stop Iran from doing what it is doing. That assumes that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons because a nuclear program is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as long as they abide by some rules. I was able to sit down with some very top level Israelis and nobody yet can say for sure that Iran has taken a decision to militarize its program. There is no evidence from IAEA inspectors or other intelligence that any enriched uranium will be diverted from a civilian program to a military program. The worry for Israel, mostly since it lives so close, is that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon. They feel that they have to nab it before it actually gets out of “the zone of immunity” and Iran puts the operation further underground or is on the threshold of nuclear capability. The Politic: You talk about this idea of moving from the stick to the carrot, but what does this stick and carrot combination look like? CA: The metaphor is actually the basis for much successful negotiation. It involves taking the concerns of the other side seriously, when you can. Obviously the United States and the West have issues with Iran, not just with nuclear technology, but with their support of terrorism and position on the Israel/ Palestine conflict. So Iran has to be required to give on those issues as well. But beyond that, in my conversations with the Iranian officials over the last many, many years, particularly during the reform years, I have found that Iran wants to have a different relationship with the United States with a “win-win solution.” They use the words “dignity,” they say “we will not be dictated to, we will not capitulate at all to you just telling us what we need to do.” Iran has legitimate security concerns which must be discussed, as other countries are threatening war with them. There’s another fear, of course, underlying Iran’s fears, which is that Israel and the United States are more concerned with overthrowing the regime than with any other issues I mentioned. They have seen many covert operations which helps explain their actions against U.S. citizens who have entered the country. When you have no diplomatic Spring 2012 I
37
International
relations, you’re in a very tense situation. Nobody wants to see a nuclear Iran and nuclear arms race in that part of the world. But I just question the method of ensuring Iran does not go nuclear. And I’m also concerned, as a journalist, of the herd mentality setting in, of everybody going with what they believe is the inevitability of war causing them to glorify sources that bolster and justify that. As a journalist, I try to combat propaganda wherever it is and get to the truth, so I strongly believe that it is incumbent upon us to seek all of the sources possible, and talk to Iranian officials. The Politic: What do you think the future of Egypt will be? CA: I have a deeply optimistic view of the future. I think that Egyptians are like you and me. They span all ages, all classes, genders, and religions. Do I think that inevitably the fall of Mubarak has led to the fabric of democracy? Not quite yet. But I think they are on the right path. The military right now is the biggest problem. When everybody was so happy that Mubarak had stepped down, I said that they had now traded a military-backed president for the military. The Politic: Do you see the military giving up power? CA: No, not for the moment. They feel great pressure from the street. But they are acting just like the Mubarak regime. Whenever they feel under pressure, they blame foreigners and they round up a bunch of foreigners, in this case Americans,
who they threaten to put on trial. It’s the same thing you see in Russia under Vladimir Putin: blame foreigners. The underlying concern about Egypt’s future is the role of Islamism in this part of the world. Again, I’m not as pessimistic as many people are. I do not foresee Egypt, Tunisia or Morocco becoming Iran, where a so called democratic revolution brought in a fundamentalist regime that stayed. We’ve interviewed the Islamists over and over again. They renounced violence a long time ago. The first wave of democracy in that part of the world will have the religious face because that’s the only place where people were able to organize. It was in the mosques. The Politic: What implications do you think the change in government will have for relations with Israel? CA: In terms of Israel, I think two things. I believe that the peace treaties between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel will not be overturned. I’ve asked every one of these Islamic officials, and they’ve said, it’s a national treaty, and in our interests. Having said that, foreign policy in Egypt will pay much more attention to the street. So there will not be this wholesale doing what America wants, doing what Israel wants, without question. I’m not saying that they will turn as enemies toward Israel and the United States, but the street will have much more of a voice in foreign policy. If you were to be really pessimistic, you think it’s going to be Iran 1979 in 2012. If you’re optimistic, you are going to look at Turkey, which is Islamic but secular and has done as much as it can to thwart the power of the military and to be less authoritarian. The Politic: What is your opinion on the current violence in Syria? CA: I have to say after almost two months of this, I am absolutely disgusted. I was in Bosnia for years; I reported every single day on inaction in Bosnia that led to genocide. Men and women were being slaughtered in the age of satellite television and you could see it on the nightly news every single day. I also remember Rwanda, where inaction and lack of coverage led to a horrible genocide. While I hoped the situation in Syria might resolve itself in the first couple of months it is now imperative that the West intervenes somehow. The Politic: What does that intervention look like?
While the military was initially celebrated for their part in the overthrow of Mubarak, their hold on power has worried many democracy activists.
38
THE POLITIC
CA: The West says we can’t do a NATO no-fly zone because the Syrians are not us-
International
ing aircrafts against their people. My view is that they have to continue to try to get Assad out. When the Secretary of State of the United States and the President of the United States say Assad must go, then that is a serious demarche. They have to then put some kind of power behind those slogans. As angry as you can be at China and Russia for failing to even condemn what the Syrian president is doing, it has to be more than just angry words. We’ve had these words from the White House and from the State Department for nearly eleven months and nothing has happened. So I think there has to be some change. Try to open humanitarian corridors for people to come out. Just keep the pressure up. I think there was a misguided impression that to interfere in Syria could lead to a civil war. If it’s not civil war now, I don’t know what it is. I also think there was an impression that Syria was too important to regional stability to mess with. Even the Israelis, as they said in a senior briefing the other day, believe Assad’s time is up, he’s got to go. And furthermore, they don’t believe his departure will be bad for Israel or the region. They don’t believe that a fundamentalist Islamic group is going to replace the Assad regime. I think that it is now unavoidable, unconscionable, and immoral not to intervene. And if the West disrupts Assad, it could also help them in other goals given their statements that Assad is an ally of Iran and Hezbollah. I think maybe Turkey can be prevailed upon to do more. When we were in Bosnia, there was a blanket United Nations arms embargo on everybody, designed to stop the better-armed Serbs army from attacking Muslim populations. But what it meant was the side with the advantage had that advantage entrenched, and the side with no weapons were lambs to the slaughter. And now the opposition in Syria, which has not really been militarized until they were forced to because they were under such sustained attack, needs to be armed. I don’t see any other way about it. If the West can act in Libya, then they need to act in Syria. 100%.
that enough thought and patience has been given to coherent intervention. It is not just whack-a-mole and leave. When you commit forces, whether it is in the air, ground or sea, there has to be a coherent strategy and vision, which has benchmarks and time allotted to them. Unfortunately, the political system in the United States is not committed to that kind of patience. Ten years is a long time; the war in Afghanistan is the longest war the United States has fought. I submit that this war would have been over many years ago had the focus not changed to Iraq, and there had been a much more coherent civilian and military effort to stabilize Afghanistan. It was always a straw-man to say “oh, we can’t do this because they don’t have a tradition of democracy and we can’t make a Jeffersonian democracy.” Nobody was asking you to do that. They are just asking to stabilize the country and make sure that your blood and treasure and effort and time is coherently spent so that after ten years when the country is rightly tired with war and when so many people have been killed, you don’t just pull out and see all that you have done potentially whittle away. For these reasons, I am also concerned about Iraq. The Politic: You talk about the American political system contributing to a bad foreign policy. I would be curious to hear more about that. How can we change and adjust that system to better allow for a coherent foreign policy with a long-term focus? CA: Foreign policy has grown too superficial in that often there isn’t enough time put into the really hard work. Nationbuilding has come to be a dirty word. Whatever your opinion
The Politic: More generally, you have been talking about intervention, so do you have any specific idea for evaluating Obama’s foreign policy thus far? Do you have any thoughts about both Obama’s foreign policy and also on this idea of when intervention is justified? CA: I believe in intervention but not in an intervention that is not thought out. My issue with intervention now after watching it for the better part of The violence in Syria has taken a toll on the country, especially in Homs which is pictured twenty years is that I do not believe above. Spring 2012 I
39
International
that you can only say I will intervene in this place for a limited time and then leave prevents this unbelievable superpower, with the best ideas and best ability to bring change to various countries, from fulfilling its promises and reaching its potential to create stable, productive nations. The Politic: I know you came under a little fire during the Bosnian War for emotional non-neutral reporting, and I was curious what you think the role of a reporter is in a situation like that?
The violence in Bosnia required a sustained U.S. intervention to overcome. on nation-building is now, it is clear that the Marshall Plan of post-World War II has benefitted the United States, creating a stable, democratic and strong Germany. The people of the United States are not vested enough in foreign policy as they are generally shielded from being involved in what it means to be a great power. We are at fault in the media because our bosses believe that you don’t care. Therefore, we have no intelligent strategy for reporting the matters that matter most to the people of this country. Others are at fault. The education system in this country believes that you don’t need to learn about what happens outside your borders until you come to a university. I could go to the least privileged corner of Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran, or the slums of Nairobi, or dysfunctional failed state Somalia, and there kids as young as five or eight will tell me chapter and verse about what is going on in the United States. Yet that is not happening here. I strongly believe that unless the body politic – the people of the United States – are invested in what is going on, it enables the politicians to get away with not doing the right thing. When President Clinton talked about the deployment of NATO forces in Bosnia, he talked about a year or six months of deployment. I thought to myself this is silly, this is a joke. He is only saying that because it is politically expedient, and sure enough, they were there for thirteen, fourteen years. The fact
40
THE POLITIC
CA: It was very bad to be accused of not being objective, and still is bad, so when that was written about me in the New York Times I was stunned with tears in my eyes. I thought about it, and I was angry that that had been said, but I realized I had been objective. What I had done was told the truth, and I had not created false equivalencies between the aggressor and the victim. People had said that because they had felt very, very uncomfortable about what we had been reporting. It meant they had to do something, and they didn’t want to. Not the Clinton administration, not the British, not the French, not anybody that was involved wanted to make the hard decision that would require serious intervention. All they wanted to do was bring medicine to people who were being slaughtered at the end of the 20th century. These people looked just like us; they weren’t aliens. I often asked – if they had been Christian instead of Muslims how long would it have taken for intervention. In any event, it caused me to redefine my definition of objectivity. It means reporting the truth, it means giving both sides a fair hearing but not inferring that both sides are equal. It did not mean doing this dreadful thing, which people mistakenly think that objectivity is and what I abhor, that is giving both sides equal weight; especially when one side participates in a wholesale assault on international and humanitarian law through crimes against humanity. You don’t just go into a Bosnia or a Kosovo or a Syria and say “oh this is just a terrible civil war and we can’t do anything about it.” Usually that’s not the case. And when it came to Bosnia, the Europeans said, “this is just centuries of ethnic hatred and both sides are equally guilty;” well that was just a lie. So we pointed out the lie and we were called impartial. I ask people who ask me, “what about using your objectivity?” Well, if I were reporting in Nazi Germany would I have said, “oh Mr. Hitler had a point.” No. Jacob Effron is a junior in Silliman College.
International
Remember Darfur By Hamara Abate
A
forgotten twenty-first century genocide. This is how Daowd Salih, founder of the Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy in Sudan, referred to the current situation in Darfur. Since February 2003, Darfur, a western Sudanese region, has suffered intense conflicts affecting an estimated five million citizens. Although the United Nations initially paid substantial attention to this region, in recent years there has been an undeniable abatement of active intervention, foreign mediation and media attention in Darfur. The conflict commenced in early 2003, when rebel groups in Darfur revolted against the central government, decrying its negligence in the region. The groups claimed that the policies of the repressive government in Khartoum had done little to solve the chronic food shortage in the west. Many in Darfur believed this abandonment was the result of a deep-rooted ethnic divide. High poverty rates plagued the region, which has scarce access to water and other resources. Therefore, when nomadic ‘Arab’ tribes moved into the area to graze their herds, the settled ethnic ‘African’ farmers were angered. Salih says that the central Arab government in Khartoum did little to intervene in the conflicts that ensued between these groups because they consider the ‘African’ citizens an inferior race to their ‘Arab’ counterparts. By January 2004, the situation in Darfur had escalated into full-blown rebellion. With orders from Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, the army moved in to repress the uprising. They allied themselves with the ‘Arab’ Janajaweed militia. By taking up a scorched-earth policy, these armed groups committed ghastly acts of ethnic cleansing. They systematically pillaged entire ‘African’ villages, burned crops, and raped women. In a single week, the United Nations reported that more than 18,000 refugees had fled to nearby Chad. By September 9, 2004, then US Secretary of State Colin Powell labeled the crisis in Darfur a ‘genocide.’ In the years that followed, the genocide in Darfur generated an immense amount of publicity in the media and a large response from foreign powers. Fearing a repeat of the Rwandan genocide, the U.N. took the situation seriously. In July 2004, the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) was created with the mandate of dealing with enforcing international humanitarian law in Darfur. By 2005, there were a total of 17,000 peacekeepers in the region. John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Project, an organization that aims to end genocide, spoke with The Politic about these actions. As a past director of African Affairs at the National Security Council and special advisor at the State Department, Prendergast is an expert on Darfur. He noted that the actions taken by the UN were only a “partial solution.” By the time peacekeepers had been deployed to Darfur, the damage had already been done. Prendergast said
that the Janjaweed militia had already finished attacking the targeted areas; thus, when the AU and the UN intervened, death rates fell, which gave the false impression that the situation had markedly improved. In the years since, however, the situation in Darfur has stagnated. The Sudanese government and leading rebel groups of Darfur have signed a number of peace agreements. Yet the region has not experienced significant change as President al-Bashir has not implemented the reforms promised.
Violence has continued to plague Darfur. Prendergast asserts that “you can sustain international interest on an issue for only so long a period…definitely, Darfur’s period has come and gone in terms of the public spotlight.” In the years since, the attention on Darfur has been phased out and replaced with other issues in Africa that the world has found more pressing and immediate. In 2011, for example, it was Sudan’s split into two countries. However, there is still hope for this western Sudanese region. Although the secession of South Sudan took attention away from the crisis in the west, this may have positive implications for Darfur as South Sudan and Darfur share many of the same problems. And in December, China sent a special envoy to encourage the central government to settle its disputes with South Sudan. China alluded to the adverse implications on its investment in the country if the issue is not resolved. It has become apparent that if real change is to occur in the region, foreign powers must take action against the current regime. Beyond Chinese pressure, Prendergast stressed the importance of U.S. involvement because of its singularly important role in the region. For now, however, those in Darfur can only hope that the stakes are high enough for others to intervene. Hamara Abate is a freshman in Pierson College. Spring 2012 I
41
International
The Anomaly of Female Leadership in Latin America By Rachel Kubi
L
atin America is a region of unlikely contrasts. UNICEF data reveal that 29 percent of women in Latin America and the Caribbean are married by age 18, yet Latin America leads the world in number of female presidents and prime ministers. While polls conducted by Nielson show only 36 percent of Brazilian women worked outside the home in 2008, Brazil recently elected its first female president. By contrast, in the United States, over 70 percent of women work outside of the home while the median age for a woman’s first marriage is 26. The United States appears to be a place more conducive to female leadership than Latin America. Yet Latin America, though it trails the United States in many indicators of gender equity, has succeeded where the United States has failed: electing a woman head of state. The path to the direct election of a female president in Latin America began with Isabel Peron of Argentina. The third wife of popular former Argentine president Juan Peron, Isabel served as Vice President until President Juan died in 1974. Isabel Peron’s rise to power was prefaced by Eva “Evita” Peron, Juan Peron’s second wife, who played a large and vis-
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the current president of Argentina, had a lengthy political career prior to her presidency. 42
THE POLITIC
ible role in orchestrating his social welfare policies. Though Isabel was not directly elected to the presidency and instead succeeded her husband after his death, she made history as the world’s first female president and first non-royal female head of state in the Western Hemisphere. Her presidency, despite its historic nature, did not reach the iconic status of her husband’s rule, and was plagued by allegations of human rights abuses and corruption. During her tenure, inflation in Argentina rose to 300 percent and political violence terrorized the nation. Peron was eventually forced out of power by the military and lived under house arrest for five years before fleeing to Spain. In 2007, Argentina issued a warrant for her arrest on charges of human rights violations. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, current president of Argentina, followed the Isabel Peron model for attaining political power: succeeding a husband as president. Kirchner, however, received no official appointments from the regime of her husband. When Nestor Kirchner was elected to the presidency in 2003, Cristina Kirchner, having served as Senator of Santa Cruz for two years, was already an established politician. Under Nestor’s presidency, Cristina exerted great influence as first lady and senator. As the first elected female president of Argentina, Kirchner has taken strides to distance herself from Isabel Peron, championing controversial initiatives such as the legalization of gay marriage. Argentina has a rich tradition of women in government, due in part to a 1991 quota mandate requiring 30 percent of congressional seats be filled by women. This, combined with Evita Peron’s beloved status in the nation, has helped women take on leadership roles in the Argentine government. Marrying an influential politician is not the only route to political leadership for women in Latin America. Laura Chinchilla, current president of Costa Rica, is the daughter of Rafael Angel Chincilla Fallas, former comptroller of Costa Rica. After studying public policy at Georgetown University, Chinchilla served as Vice-Minister for Public Security, Minister of Public Security in the late 1990s, and Vice President under Oscar Arias before running for president in 2010. In the cases of Michelle Bachelet of Chile and Dilma Rouseff of Brazil, Latin American women have also demonstrated the ability to become president without any familial ties to government. Elected in 2006, Bachelet is the first woman in South America to win a presidential election without gaining prominence through marriage. Instead, she became politically active in the opposition movement against dictator Gen.
International
Alberto Pinochet. While a medical student at the University In the century since women achieved the right to vote in of Chile, Bachelet was arrested and tortured by the Pinochet 1919, the United States has failed to elect a woman to a post regime. After being exiled in 1975, Bachelet returned to Chile higher than Speaker of the House. Interestingly, Nancy Pelosi, where she served as Minister of Health and Latin America’s elected Speaker of the House in 2007 and the highest-ranking first female Minister of Defense. Latin America’s most recently female official in American history, is the daughter of former elected female president, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, took of- Congressman and Mayor Thomas D’Alessandro Jr. and sister fice in January 2011. Like Bachelet, Rousseff is a self-made of former Baltimore mayor Thomas D’Alessandro III. This politician, and was similarly active in the underground move- is not to say that Pelosi’s rise to power was solely facilitated ment opposing Brazil’s military dictatorship. She subsequently by her family, but rather that America seems to be more acbecame involved in politics in 2002, when President Lula da cepting of female politicians from powerful families. Silva appointed her Minister of Energy. After a corruption Of the thirteen women who served in the first mixed scandal forced Chief of Staff Jose Dirceu to step down, Rous- gender sessions of Congress from 1920-1929, four were seff assumed his position and made history as Brazil’s first elected to seats formerly occupied by their husbands or fafemale Chief of Staff. Rousseff continues to make history, thers. All but three of these women were related to a former as both the first female and the first economist to serve as politician. president of Brazil. Building on the legacies of Bachelet and Rouseff, economist and former secretary of Public Education Josefina Vázquez Mota is a serious candidate in the 2012 Mexican presidential election. In contrast, first ladies in the United States are expected to take on largely symbolic roles and noncontroversial causes, such as literacy, nature preservation, and supporting military families. As wives of politicians, they are expected to observe and not actively participate in policy issues. Despite an 82 percent approval rating in 2006, among the highest of any first lady in history, most Americans polled by Gallup said they would not like to see Laura Bush run for US Senate. First ladies are expected to take on supporting roles, and – with the exception of Hillary Clinton – not to break out of them. Though Clinton challenged traditional notions of a first lady’s role, her successor, Laura Bush, did not. Bush’s astronomical approval ratings reflect on her noncontroversial and largely ceremonial role. As she commented, “I’m not the one who was elected. I would never do anything to undermine Michelle Bachelet, the President of Chile from 2006 to 2010, my husband’s point of view.” Current First Lady Michelle is currently the Executive Director of UN Women. Obama, a Harvard-educated lawyer who was her husband’s supervisor and out-earned him for years during their marriage, Unlike Latin America, the United States is distrustful of seems to have found a middle ground between the Laura Bush overly active political spouses. While Juan Peron was able to and Hillary Clinton models of political spouse: she travels successfully run for president with Isabel Peron as his vice to battleground states to deliver addresses supporting her president, critics attacked Bill Clinton’s campaign promise of husband’s policies and is a mainstay at campaign fundraisers. “two for the price of one,” which referred to the important Paul Begala, a Clinton administration advisor, warned in a role Hillary would play in his presidency. While Evita Peron February CNN interview that Michelle Obama should not publicly spearheaded many of her husband’s social welfare become “too political” so as not to “diminish her value.” programs, Hillary Clinton’s involvement in 1993 healthcare Hillary Clinton made it acceptable for wives to take a more reform was unpopular and her subsequent role in policy was active role in their husbands’ administrations, but Laura Bush consciously downplayed. Americans seem uncomfortable showed that the less political a First Lady is, the more popular with anyone other than elected officials playing influential she is. Clinton’s prominent role in her husband’s presidency roles in shaping public policy. Latin America, in contrast, has was an anomaly in its scope, but the popularity of Michelle embraced unelected wives of politicians taking on influential Obama shows that Americans will accept a First Lady acting roles, both during their spouse’s political career and in their as her husband’s proxy in certain, very limited ways. own. Latin America is the global leader in female heads of
Spring 2012 I
43
International
these statistics, stating, “Many of the Latin American leaders of today share the experience of coming of age during the painful period of the military dictatorships of the 1970’s and 1980’s. That formative period was characterized by a rejection of traditional forms of leadership and a more inclusive form of politics that didn’t focus on gender or class as a condition to hold an important political role.”
“While a greater number of Americans claim to support female candidates, Latin Americans actually believe a female candidate will be elected. Perhaps that is the secret to the ascendancy of female leaders in Latin America: a belief that their rise to power is inevitable.”
Dilma Vana Rousseff is the current President of Brazil who began her career as the Minister of Energy. state, with Rousseff, Kirchner, and Chinchilla all currently occupying the highest offices in their countries. While women have been assisted by quota laws, Teresa Carballal, Senior Lecturer of Spanish at Yale, argues that it is more culture than quotas that have helped women to take on politically active roles.“Women in power are not a completely new development in the Southern Cone,” explains Carballal. “Argentina had the precedent of a powerful and influential woman in Eva Perón, and women in general became aware of their role in politics as part of her movement, in particular when they acquired the right to vote, in the 1940s. The new female heads of state of this last decade, who are of my generation, were politicized during the brutal military regimes. They played a very big role in resistance movements, sometimes fighting alongside men and proving themselves capable as organizers, militants and leaders; they gained experience and took on increasingly visible roles.” More importantly, public opinion in Latin America is extremely accepting of female leaders. Gallup polling in Latin America in 2000 revealed that 90 percent of Latin Americans would be willing to vote for a qualified female president, and 69 percent believed their nation would elect a female president in the next 20 years. Carballal was not surprised at
44
THE POLITIC
Latin America does not have the luxury of gender discrimination: having suffered through oppressive regimes, as recently as the 1980s, Latin Americans look for leaders who are “tough” enough to tackle problems of income inequality, poverty, and corruption. Women in Latin America politicized themselves by resisting the ruling system, like American women did during the Revolutionary War, but during the 1960s, a time of global expansion of women’s rights. After helping establish more democratic governments, Latin American women were included in the governance of their nations. Though American women also contributed to the birth of their nation, women in government in the 1770s were an unspeakable notion. Today, however, Americans are supportive of a potential female president: a 2005 CBS News/New York Times poll reported that 92 percent of voters would vote for a qualified female presidential candidate. Yet only 55 percent stated that America is ready for a female president. While a greater number of Americans claim to support female candidates, Latin Americans actually believe a female candidate will be elected. Perhaps that is the secret to the ascendancy of female leaders in Latin America: a belief that their rise to power is inevitable. Rachel Kubi is a sophomore in Saybrook College.
International
Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Dispute By Aleksandra Gjorgievska
T
he Israeli town of Beit Shemesh, Hebrew for “House of the Sun,” recently witnessed a modern-day reenactment of Rosa Parks’ refusal to move to the back of a bus. Rachel Weinstein, a secular Beit Shemesh resident, earned international recognition after refusing an ultra-Orthodox passenger’s demand for gender segregation on a local bus, in spite of the compliance of other female passengers. By virtue of her action, Weinstein joined individuals such as Doron Matalon, a young female soldier who was accosted for freely choosing a seat on a public bus, and 8-year-old Naama Margolis, who was spit on and verbally abused for being dressed “immodestly” on her way to school. But who are the ultra-Orthodox Israelis in these episodes? Are the underpinnings of their goals religious, social, or political? In what way does their conservatism complicate Israel’s identity as a Jewish homeland? These and more questions are the focus of intense debate among politicians, human rights activists, academics and aware citizens – both Israeli and international. Understanding, or at least conceiving an informed opinion of, the Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jews requires an acquaintance with their background and circumstances. The story of the clash between secular Jews and the Haredim – another name for the ultra-Orthodox – dates back to the rise of the modern Zionist movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While secular Zionists advocated for an active pursuit of Jewish political independence and a gradual replacement of religious with nationalist sentiments, the Haredi Jews believed that divine intervention was the only legitimate catalyst for the formation of Israel. Yet the two Jewish groups, forced to work together against foreign enemies, reached a political understanding known as the Status quo agreement. Part of this agreement stipulated that then-Prime Minister David Ben Gurion would exempt from the otherwise mandatory military service Haredi religious scholars who wanted to focus solely on Torah study. In addition, because the Haredim considered work an unnecessary detraction from their studies, they would receive substantial financial support from the state. Yet Ben Gurion could hardly have foreseen the escalation of the conflict between the two groups. As more and more Haredi Jews chose to eschew the military in pursuit of religious study, the community as a whole began to succumb to political and educational apathy. Contemporary Haredi realities are striking: recent labor polls have shown, for instance, that around 65 percent of working age Haredi men are unemployed. Moreover, it is customary for Haredi children to cease studying subjects such as mathematics and history in eighth grade, thereafter basing any further academic pursuits
on the study of religious texts. Few Haredi families own a television or a computer and none that do allow unfiltered media material to be broadcasted in their homes.
“Experts estimate that by 2034 one out of five Israelis will be ultra-Orthodox.” As can be expected, the effects of these Haredi traditions have begun to affect the state of Israel in its entirety. While the ultra-Orthodox are spending their lives in the seminaries, the rest of the Israeli Jews must shoulder the burdens of taxation and conscription. And since their lack of formal education renders the Haredim unable to join the workforce, the poverty currently plaguing Haredi communities may soon spread to the rest of Israel. Experts estimate that by 2034 one out of five Israelis will be ultra-Orthodox due to high Haredi fertility rates. Many of the most extreme Haredim still refuse to recognize Israel’s statehood, claiming that the coming of the Messiah is the only act that can facilitate the creation of a Jewish state. Still others are among the strongest defiers of a territorial compromise with the Palestinians, citing God’s covenant with Abraham whereby the land of Israel was granted to the Jews. The current demographic predictions show that their political presence may increase, thus rendering Israeli society increasingly right wing. It is worth pointing out that these substantial issues are surfacing at a time when the conflict with Palestine is no longer dominating international headlines in the way it once did. Arguably, the absence of progress on the Palestinian issue is making the Israelis look inward toward their own domestic crises. And as the Haredi community grows larger and more confrontational, concern for how to deal with the social disruptions and violence grows as well. Many commentators argue that secular protesters, despite the support they are receiving from the government, may soon have to replace their signs inscribed with mottos such as “Israel is not Tehran” with other means of overcoming the Haredim. Israeli politicians are attempting with increasing anxiety to resolve these issues. But what such a resolution will entail – one that will reflect both on how the international community perceives Israel and how the Jewish people perceive themselves – is decidedly unclear. Aleksandra Gjorgievska is a freshman in Pierson College.
Spring 2012 I
45
International
Burma: One Step Forward or One Step Back? By Eli Rivkin
D
espite its status as one of the most resource-rich countries in the world, Burma is rarely acknowledged or even noticed by the international community. Pressed between China and India and boasting sizeable reserves of gold, rubies, teak, rice and beaches among other things, the country has the potential to become a key regional power. Its abundance of resources should allow Burma’s GDP to exceed that of comparable neighbors in Southeast Asia, and with an incredibly hardworking populace, Burma could be as industrialized as South Korea or Japan. Sadly, these claims are not true – so why is Burma one of the most indigent nations in the world, ranking 149th on the Human Development Index? One possible answer is greed. Anyone who gains control of the raw materials is guaranteed immense wealth, no matter the means he uses to come to power. As a result, Burma’s history is filled with military juntas and dictatorships promising equality and freedom, yet secretly massacring ethnic minorities in the country’s resource-rich jungles for the sole purpose of enriching themselves. However, recently the government has made limited reforms in an attempt to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the international community, especially the United States. The Burmese government has made rapid and surprising changes to the political climate. For one, the junta gave up their unchecked power in 2010 and spearheaded the first elections since 1990, where civilian representatives ran for and won seats in the House of Representatives. Although only 65 out of the 330 seats were won by civilians who were not in the military junta’s party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), this move towards democracy marked a turning point in the government’s aims. Rather than continuing a policy of secretive, authoritative dictatorship, the regime now looks towards appearing more democratic to win favor with the West. Since these elections, the new president Thein Sein, a former military junta official, has initiated a host of reforms that are more in line with “the will of the Burmese people.” He has halted the Myitstone Dam - a dam project by the China Power Investment Corporation that would have displaced thousands of Kachin peoples in Northern Burma, registered the National League for Democracy (NLD), lifted many restrictions on recently released dissident Aung San Suu Kyi, signed the first ever cease-fire agreement with the Karen National Union (KNU) that ended one of the longest running civil wars in the world, established a cease-fire with the Shan State Army South, released 651 political prisoners, and planned new elections on April 1, all within the past month. Given that these instrumental changes have occurred in such a short time frame, what is the international community’s role is in facilitating these reforms while also ensuring that the 46
THE POLITIC
government does not disregard their current progress? Over the past few weeks, the United States has met “action with action.” Following the U.S.’ dual track policy, which imposes rigorous sanctions on Burma due to their dismal human rights record, while remaining open to public dialogue and cooperation in exchange for government compliance, President Obama has agreed to take the first steps toward normalizing relations between the two countries. To start this process, Hillary Clinton made the first visit of any U.S. Secretary of State in 50 years to Burma just two months ago. After Burma’s more recent reforms, President Obama has decided to select a U.S. Ambassador to serve in the country for the first time in 20 years and invited Burma to do the same in the United States. These steps illustrate the U.S.’ commitment to rewarding countries that make serious commitments to reforms through initial open dialogue. Other countries have followed the U.S.’ lead, with Britain sending its foreign secretary, William Hague, and France sending its foreign minister, Alain Juppé, to Burma as well. At such an instrumental time in diplomatic relations with the long isolated country of Burma, the U.S. believes that it needs to continue to monitor the situation before any more substantial moves can be made. This policy seems prudent given the current unrest in Burma’s resource-rich north. Last week, new rounds of fighting broke out between the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), one of Burma’s northern ethnic minority groups, and the Burmese government. After the KIA detained two Burmese soldiers who entered its semiautonomous region in June 2011, the Burmese government responded by ending a 17-year cease-fire agreement and engaging in their age-old practices of planting land mines, firing mortar rounds, torturing civilians, and raping women even after the two soldiers were returned unharmed. This renewed fighting has tested the country’s reforms and progress, especially coming directly after Thein Sein’s recent diplomatic successes in terms of reengaging with the West. When asked about the U.S.’ response to the current ethnic conflicts in the country, one State Department representative commented, “The United States remains concerned about violence in Burma’s ethnic minority areas and has consistently called for an immediate halt to hostilities. We urge the Burmese government to build on initial discussions with an inclusive dialogue process leading to concrete actions toward genuine national reconciliation.” In short, the U.S. government is wary to make drastic attempts to lift sanctions and trade embargos if each of Burma’s steps forward is met with a step backward. The question now becomes how the international community will move forward, knowing that serious problems still threaten Burma’s path towards democracy. Given that most
International
not necessarily affect the military’s decisions. As a result, one major obstacle in transitioning completely to a democracy would be to decrease the influence of the military on policy so that Thein Sein’s reforms, especially in creating cease-fires with ethnic minorities, can take hold. A premature lifitng of sanctions by the U.S. could be catastrophic for the country because foreign companies would be allowed to exploit the areas where ethnic minorities reside thereby causing internal strife that a disjointed and weak democracy would be unThough Burma has moved toward more democratic rule, its future is far able to control. from certain. The road ahead is unclear, but Burma has made an important start in reengaging with the of the country consists of “black zones” where foreigners are not allowed to travel, it remains unclear how close the country international community and embracing pro-democratic is to solving its various ethnic conflicts. Cease-fires with two movements within its country. The ethnic conflicts, political of the more prominent ethnic groups indicate progress in the prisoners, and questions about military alliances with North right direction, yet increased conflict in the North puts Burma Korea remain obstacles to achieving complete reforms, but further away from its apparent goal. Aung San Suu Kyi and the country seems to be trying to alleviate these complications her party are allowed to run in the upcoming election in April, one step at a time. All that the international community can but there are only 48 seats available, which could limit her do now is keep its focus on the resource-rich country, watch influence in government if elected given the ex-military junta for new developments, and hopefully restore full diplomatic majority already in place. The international consensus seems relations with Burma when the country has proven that deto be to create a stable, conflict-free Burma that will promote mocracy is there to stay. democracy and the free market. However, China previously Eli Rivkin is a freshman in Trumbull College. held a trading monopoly with the country, given its disregard for the international community’s sanctions. With Burma standing up to Chinese companies, as was the case with the Myitstone Dam, how hard will China fight for a democratic Burma? In addition to the continuing human rights abuses in the North and other areas around the country, the U.S. is also concerned about a possible military alliance with North Korea. The same State Department representative remarked, “The United States will continue to work with the Burmese Government to encourage further reform and reconciliation efforts including taking further steps to end violence in ethnic minority areas, ensuring free and fair by-elections, making sure that all remaining political detainees are released unconditionally, and severing military ties with North Korea.” The U.S. sees Burma’s reforms as a commendable start to a more democratic form of government, but it needs to see more concrete, sustainable changes to actively remove sanctions and establish completely normal relations. The U.S.’s position is sensible given the instability of Burma’s internal governmental structure. Unlike our system of government, in which the president is also the commander of the armed forces, the Burmese system places the army one grade higher than the president. General Min Aung Hlaing is the commander of the Tatmadaw, the Myanmar armed forces, and has the authority to carry out his own orders. Essentially, the rulings under Thein Sein and the civilian government do Spring 2012 I
47
International
Learning From Ai Weiwei, China’s Dissident Extraordinaire By Cindy Hwang
T
he Arab Spring did not quite make it to China. There, the throes of the government’s recent clampdown? the Jasmine Revolution met a premature end, halted Ai Weiwei has been lucky compared to other outspoken at the cyberspace stage of indiscriminate calls for action. Chinese activists. Although the government has placed him The Chinese government responded swiftly to the protests, under strict bail conditions, including a prohibition on makdispatching police officers to major cities and launching the ing any public statements, he was spared the ten-year prison largest wave of arrests and detentions since the Tiananmen sentence that the Chinese government routinely doles out to Square protests of 1989. It has since detained or arrested over dissidents. Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese writer, human rights activone hundred activists, lawyers, bloggers, artists, and writers. ist, and recipient of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, is currently The culmination of this crackserving an eleven-year sentence down came with the arrest and threefor alleged subversion of state month detention of the prominent powers. Many of those arrested Chinese artist Ai Weiwei in April in the recent crackdown, includ2011. One of China’s most famous ing prominent human rights artists–and a designer of the Bird’s lawyers, remain unaccounted Nest Stadium for the 2008 Summer for. According to Human Rights Olympics)–Ai had come under inWatch, less visible Chinese accreasing scrutiny for his provocative tivists remain “at high risk” of artwork and pointed, criticism of the torture. It is these individuals Chinese government. He regularly who deserve the most concern: railed against the government in his with no international pressure blog–which authorities shut down exerted on their behalf, the Chiin 2009–and Twitter posts, and had nese government can imprison amassed a huge online following. them indefinitely. Ai, in defiance The Chinese government, in its reof his bail conditions, criticized newed effort to silence the country’s the treatment of four business most strident activists, arrested Ai colleagues who were held in defor alleged “economic crimes,” or tention and called for the release tax evasion. of two Chinese activists in TwitThe Chinese government soon ter postings, explaining that “if discovered it had made an error in you don’t speak for [them], not its political calculus: an international only you’re the sort that doesn’t Ai’s 2010 “Sunflower Seeds” installation at the outpouring of condemnation fol- Tate Modern Art Gallery, comprised of over one hundred speak up for fairness and justice, you have no self-respect.” lowed the arrest. Ai, after all, is a million hand-painted, porcelain sunflower seeds. He understood, as he later told renowned artist whose work has been exhibited in museums, galleries, and art festivals world- The New York Times, that his colleagues were subjected to wide. Figuring that the political costs of continuing to detain harsher treatment than he was because they were unknown him were too high, the government released him after three to the general public. However, there is no doubt that Ai’s role as a public critic months, supposedly “because of his good attitude in confessing his crimes as well as a chronic disease he suffers from.” His of the Chinese government has been diminished–according release came as somewhat of a shock to the rest of the world, to Chinese law, the police can pursue his case for up to a year as it is a triumph of public pressure over objectionable state after his release, during which he must tread water far more actions. But now that Ai has been released, the question re- cautiously. He hasn’t lost any of his audacity–he is appealing mains: what should Chinese civil society and the international the exorbitant $2.4 million bill the government charged him community do about other, lesser-known activists caught in for tax evasion. But a palpable void of civic criticism now
48
THE POLITIC
International
exists. Ai, who brazenly voiced the concerns and complaints of average Chinese citizens against their government, has been muffled by his bail conditions. What the international community can do now is to take some advice from the provocateur himself, adopting the same fearless, impudent attitude that comes so naturally to him. Ai has long demonstrated a dogged resolve to expose the absurdity of the Chinese government’s actions–to call them out for what they are, and to obstruct, or at least mock, their intentions. Although he helped design the Bird’s Nest Stadium, he refused to attend the Opening Ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics, calling it a “pretend smile” to distract the world from serious internal problems. When the Chinese government refused to release the names of the thousands of schoolchildren who died in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, Ai initiated a grassroots investigation that eventually published the names of nearly all the children. And when, perhaps as a result, the government installed surveillance cameras outside his studio in Beijing, Ai turned his own camera on them, posting photos of them on his Twitter feed and incorporating them into his artwork. He exhibited similar pluck when he confronted the Sichuan police, who had beaten him a year earlier, to file a complaint about his injuries. Ai was aware that the whole process was futile, but he insisted that “you have to work through the system and show it in all its detail…that’s the only way that you can ultimately make a critique.” In another
instance, after the police began filming a dinner party Ai had organized outside a restaurant that was attracting supporters, he sent his personal videographer to document them. These small acts of defiance are artworks in themselves, and much of their power comes from their deliberately irreverent, preposterous nature. Ai has transformed his political outrage into art, such that art and his everyday life have become practically indistinguishable. Considering that many activists from last year’s crackdown are still missing, and that China’s suppression of dissent continues unabated, the Chinese people, as well as the rest of the world, would be well-advised to take a few cues from Ai Weiwei. Bold, sustained, and occasionally dangerous action is necessary to make any progress on the matter – and can even be done, as in Ai’s case, with a dose of humor and sarcasm. Without fierce condemnation from the international community, China will continue to imprison dissidents at its will–and these daring, but mostly nameless individuals will continue to suffer. Few are fortunate to be as famous, widely admired, and well-connected as Ai Weiwei. But they all share the same core values that inform Ai’s work–values that their government has long failed to appreciate. Cindy Hwang is a freshman in Berkeley College.
Ai’s 2011 “Circle of Animals/Zodiac Heads” outdoor installation in New York City, unveiled while he was in detention. Spring 2012 I
49
International
Lo Queremos Todo y Lo Queremos Ya Lessons From Madrid By Marc Dewitt
“R
eformas de educación! Quiero trabajo! 9/11: Inside Job!” These shouts of frustration are only a sample of the diverse viewpoints expressed in the initial months of Spain’s Indignado (Outraged) Movement. With national unemployment hovering above 20% and youth unemployment at 46%, the Spanish people are desperate for change. On May 15th, ¡Democracia Real Ya! (DRY!), a self-described “citizens’ union”, called the people to occupy the iconic Puerta de Sol, the main plaza in Madrid. I joined 50,000 other indignant citizens to take the square. We were outraged at an economic and political system that had failed us. Inspired by the Arab Spring, the Spanish youth sought to launch a European Summer. Yet as the movement gained popularity, its aims became further diluted. I witnessed how DRY’s original platform for increased legislation on the banking industry and new electoral legislature quickly became lost in a sea of campaigns at Sol. Among the many targets of people’s placards were banks, schools and universities, labor unions, local governments, the Spanish government, the American government, the European Union and the United Nations. One section of the square even held rallies to demand economic justice from God. The largest banner in Sol told the story very well: “Lo queremos todo y lo queremos ya!” (“We want everything and we want it now!”). Realizing that such a wide range of demands was reducing the force of the movement, the chief organizers of DRY! and other protesting factions met at the end of May to discuss different unifying strategies. They decided to ground the protests in decentralized participatory democracy: neighborhood People’s Assemblies. These were small, local gatherings that were held in every city district across the country, resembling the soviets that gave shape to the Soviet Republic in the early 1900s. The neighborhood assemblies met over a period of six weeks to determine what the residents of each individual district wanted from the 15-M Movement. At the end of June, seven columns of the Indignant People’s March started in sixteen different cities to march across the country and discuss and collect the people’s demands. When the columns convened in the Puerta de Sol on July 23rd, elected representatives from each march met to evaluate the different social, political and economic demands. These were redacted into an official manifesto, The Book of the People, and deposited in the Congress of Deputies’ register. By structuring the protests around a limited set of concrete goals, the 15-M Movement lost a portion of its followers. Neither the neo-nazis nor the religious extreme continued their rallies at Sol. Yet the majority of the indignados
50
THE POLITIC
were inspired by the newly defined direction of the Movement. The Book of the People re-energized the protests and further inspired optimism to keep fighting for a more fair society. On October 15th, over 500,000 people showed their allegiance to the ideals of the Book by congregating at Sol as part of a day of global protests. The 15-M Movement staged
another enormous protest in early December and plans on convening again on February 24th. The agenda of the Book has provided the Movement with a list of objectives that has unified the protests and encouraged the activists to continue their struggle for structural reform. The initial chaos of the 15-M Movement is not too dissimilar from the incoherent idealism of Occupy Wall Street. Alexa O’Brien, the founder of U.S. Day of Rage, commented that the establishment of an agenda of unifying aims would
International
be unfeasible since there is such a wide variety of factions within the movement. She argued that, compared to the 15-M Movement in Spain, the Occupy Movement represents a more heterogeneous society and must remain abstract in order to stay true to its activists. I was told by O’Brien that even U.S. Day of Rage’s foundational principle of restricting campaign donations to $1 per voter is misleadingly conceptual. O’Brien asserted that “this principle is not as simple as that. In order for us to be effective politically we cannot build a political agenda with defined objectives. We can’t just have a manifesto, we have to remain flexible enough to respond to a changing
political environment.” Yet history would seem to indicate that any overhaul of the system requires tangible goals. In Egypt, millions danced in the streets on February 11th after deposing Mubarak. The activists have recently returned again to Tahrir Square with the new purpose of ending the military rule. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was deemed successful after 381 days when blacks were finally granted the right to sit anywhere on a public bus. By 1967, the Civil Rights
Movement had already achieved many of its objectives, at least nominally: new voting legislation, equal economic rights, improved employment opportunities. As a result, Martin Luther King Jr. spent two months in isolation contemplating the new direction of the movement. He concluded that whites and blacks needed to unite under the common goal of fighting poverty. The title of King’s last book, “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?”, echoes the dilemma faced by the leading activists in Madrid last May. These examples demonstrate the need for common concrete objectives in a movement’s success. As Occupy Wall Street enters its fifth month of existence, the Movement seems to be losing momentum. The call to retake Zuccotti Park on January 15th was only answered by a few hundred activists, in comparison to the 15,000 that marched on October 5th. However, there are few who would deny that the economic recession has demonstrated major flaws in the U.S.’ current power structures. It appears clear enough that substantial changes should be implemented. Yet if the Occupy Movement cannot collectively decide what the nature of these changes should be, then how will it ever attain sweeping reforms? The distinction between the Indignados and Occupy Wall Street is illustrated by Amnesty International’s slogan, “It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.” The Occupy Movement would be more effective if it went beyond solely condemning the economic inequality in America and shone light on potential solutions. The Movement would increase its effectiveness if it took a more pragmatic approach and formulated a unifying set of goals. In the People’s Assemblies of Spain, the ‘outraged’ Spanish citizens reflected on the 15-M Movement and discovered that, despite the ranging factions within the protests, they shared common objectives. The majority of activists had similar demands, including electoral reform, reduced military spending and improved housing rights, allowing the 15-M Movement to construct a coherent and powerful manifesto. Similarly, there appears to be much common ground within the Occupy protests. If the motto “We are the 99%” accurately represents Occupy’s fundamental ambition to reduce economic inequality, then it would seem plausible to unite OWS under a common program with several achievable aims, such as appealing the Citizens United Act, or re-instating the Glass-Steagall Act. The continued fury in Puerta de Sol reveals that optimism stems from pragmatism. As the Occupy protests display dwindling energy and motivation, the organizers of the Movement would be wise to introduce a pragmatic and coherent agenda. The activists of Zuccotti Park should look to the indignant People’s Assemblies of Spain for a model of how this could be done. Marc DeWitt is a freshman in Saybrook College. Spring 2012 I
51
The Political Pulse A Yale Radio Show Every Monday at 5:30pm with Josef Goodman On www.wybc.com
Spend a Semester in
China
The PKU-Yale Joint Undergraduate Program in Beijing Receive Full Yale Credit, Prior Knowledge of Chinese Not Required. For Further Information go to www.yale.edu/iefp/pku-yale or e-mail cristin.siebert@yale.edu.
Application Deadline: March 15 52
THE POLITIC
Politic the
Te s t Yo u r Po l i t i c a l P rowe s s
1. The political philosopher John Locke is remembered for the liberalism of his Second Treatise of Government? What did he write the First Treatise on? (a) Defense of King James II of England (b) Refutation of Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha which argued that civil society was founded on a divinely sanctioned patriarchalism (c) A history of the relationship between the monarchy and Parliament (d) There was no First Treatise. 2. In 2002, the BBC asked the public to vote for the 100 Greatest Britons in history. Which of the following was in the top ten? (a) Princess Diana (b) Duke of Wellington (c) Margaret Thatcher (d) Queen Victoria 3. Presidential hopeful Congressman Ron Paul recently declared: “We are all Austrians now.” Which famous Austrian was he referring to? (a) Marie Antoinette (b) Salomon Mayer von Rothschild c) Archduke Franz Ferdinand (d) Friedrich Hayek 5. Six countries signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to establish the European Economic Community, the precursor to the now much larger organization, European Union. Which of the following countries was not one of the original signatories? (a) France (b) Italy
(c) England (d) Netherlands
6. “The Great Game” refers to the strategic rivalry and conflict between which two powers for supremacy in the Central Asia during the 19th century? (a) Russia and China (b) British and Russian Empires (c) Russian and French Empires (d) British and French Empires
7. Which of the following did not occur in 1979? (a) President Carter takes US off the gold standard to combat stagflation (b) Chinese invasion of Vietnam (c) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (d) President Carter appoints Paul Volcker Chairman of the Fed 8. Whom did economist Milton Friedman call “the most socialist president of the 20th century”? (a) John F Kennedy for the establishment of the Peace Corps (b) Lyndon B Johnson for the passage of Medicare Act (c) Richard M Nixon for regulations such as the EPA (d) Jimmy E Carter despite the boycott of the Moscow Olympics 4. Which of the following countries has the highest debt to GDP ratio? (a) Italy (b) Greece
(c) Iceland (d) Japan
9. Which of the following countries did Hitler not invade during WWII? (a) Yugoslavia (b) Sweden
(c) Greece (d) Denmark
10. Which of the following countries has the highest corporate tax rate in the world? (a) Japan (b) United States
(c) France (d) Belgium
To score your political knowledge and discover more information visit www.thepolitic.org/quiz
Click in and Learn Yale faculty in international and area studies are interviewed about their current research.
New webisodes air each Wednesday at noon
www.yale.edu/macmillanreport
The MacMillan Report is made possible through funding from the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale.