from the editors
At a time when politics dominates our attention and permeates our discussions, The Gate is proud to be at the forefront of this discourse. The Gate’s mission is to support, encourage, and facilitate the production of excellent student political journalism while fostering commitment to public engagement and service. Under the broad banner of “All Things Politics,” we publish interviews with political leaders, reports on local events, long-form policy analysis, opinion pieces that range the political spectrum, and much more.The Gate takes no political stance, and we welcome pieces analyzing any issue or promoting any opinion, so long as it is well researched and effectively presented. We are proud to present the fourth print edition, an anthology of some of The Gate’s best work this past Autumn Quarter. The pieces featured in this edition are a testament to the dedication our writers showed in their reporting, interviewing, researching, and writing. We’re grateful to our terrific Section Editors and Copy Editors, whose tireless work make our mission possible. The design, formatting, and graphics of this issue was led by Lauren Futter and Dina Rabinovitz, to whom we are particularly appreciative. The Gate is also thankful for the support and guidance given by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, without which the publication would not exist. We are indebted to Matt Jaffe, Crystal Coates, Katrina Mertens, Alicia Sams, Lucy Little, Jennifer Huang, Zane Maxwell, Ashley Jorn, Jake Huff, and Sam Gonzales for their assistance in The Gate’s success. We also thank the wonderful IOP Fellows and guests who have offered workshops for Gate writers. The Gate is especially grateful to David Axelrod for his support of the publication and particularly his role in the second annual David Axelrod Reporting Grant, which this year allowed University of Chicago second-year Alexandra C Price to report on refugees at Berlin’s Tempelhofer Feld. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous donor, whose generous contribution allowed us, this year, to publish our first ever bi-annual print edition. This year, The Gate is thrilled to announce a newly redesigned website. At www.uchicagogate.com, you can find all the pieces in this edition, along with hundreds of other terrific examples of student political journalism. —Adam Chan and Dylan Wells, Editors-in-Chief, Jacob Toner Gosselin, Managing Editor
The Gate Vol IV | 2
table of contents 4 a nation at odds the refugee crisis in germany 12 why does ta-nehisi coates write? searching for empathy in today’s political atmosphere 16 an interview with jason kander zubair merchant sits down with the director of “let america vote” 19 marxism’s next generation the communist party’s relationship with young people in China 24 american mercantilism how america treats puerto rico like king george treated america 26 filming the forgotten a conversation with the directors of ”lost in lebanon” 28 dragging two rocket men down to earth the dangers of the trump administration’s treatment of north korea 30 are electric cars our future? the normalizing effect of norway’s tesla tax 32 avoiding the storm the dangers of mistaking interest for activism 34 beneath the veil child marriage in america editors-in-chief adam chan & Dylan wells managing editor jacob toner gosselin u.s. editor riddhi sangam chicago editor danielle schmidt world editors ashton hashemipour & saisha talwar interview editor ridgley knapp university editor sarah wasik opinion editor malloy owen chief copy editors lucy johnson & emily Lynch design team Lauren Futter & Dina Rabinovitz outreach chair eleanor khirallah marketing chair megha bhattacharya senior writers brett barbin, yarra elmasry, tim koenning, richard omoniyi-shoyoola, alexandra price, kaeli subberwal columnists will cohen, aman tiku, dylan stafford Issue 1 | 3
A Nation At Odds By Alexandra C. Price
The Gate Vol IV | 4
Walking onto the Tempelhofer Feld, it is easy to understand why the park has become one of Berlin’s most beloved green spaces. Teens speed down the former runways of the abandoned airport on skateboards and bicycles, couples picnic on the wide field, and high above—where airplanes once rose into the sky—kites soar in their place. Today, a kite festival has brought Berliners out of their respective neighborhoods and to the historic landscape of Tempelhof. But amidst all the revelry, Tempelhof also
the success of so-called Willkommenskultur, or “welcoming culture,” and “integration” in Berlin—or even in Germany as a whole? Rewind to 2015, when the word Willkommenskultur first started dominating Germany’s political and social discourse. The world gazed in awe at the second German “wonder” as people lined up at train stations, handing out teddy bears and holding posters reading, “Welcome Refugees!” Polls at the time showed that Germans overwhelmingly supported Merkel’s decision to let in more refugees, with
European neighbors. While countries such as France and Great Britain have—albeit at times begrudgingly—accepted immigrants into their societies, Germany has followed an altogether different approach: that of Gastarbeiter or “guest workers.” This program is most closely connected to the wave of Turkish immigrants who came to Germany in the 1950s to escape economic instability and satisfy a labor shortage in war-devastated Europe. As Gastarbeiter, the Turkish workers were expected to work for relatively low wag-
“Tempelhof also serves as the backdrop for an increasingly contentious social debate: how to integrate the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have arrived in Germany since 2015.” serves as the backdrop for an increasingly contentious social debate: how to integrate the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have arrived in Germany since 2015, when Chancellor Angela Merkel opened German borders to refugees of the Syrian Civil War. That year, the distinction of “largest refugee camp in Germany” was added to Tempelhof ’s extensive repertoire, raising the question: how did the Tempelhofer Feld’s role as a communal green space in Berlin contribute—or detract—from its effectiveness as a refugee shelter? And, more importantly, what does the refugee experience in Tempelhof reveal about
a stunning 96 percent claiming that “all those fleeing war or violence are entitled to asylum.” This was all in sharp contrast to images from other parts of Europe, such as the razor wire fence hastily built by Hungary along its border with Serbia in September 2015. Germans suddenly appeared more progressive than ever before, willing to “open their gates and their hearts” to those in need. The worldwide awe inspired by Germany’s Willkommenskultur was due, in part, to the darker chapters of the country’s history. Before 2015, Germany’s attitude towards refugees was far less welcoming than many of its
Kite festival at the Tempelhof Air Field
Issue 1 | 5
es, saving the money to support their families back home. However, it was widely expected that the workers would return to Turkey after a few years. In making this deal with the Turkish Gastarbeiter, the Germans never viewed themselves as an Einwanderungsland, or “land of immigration.” There was no talk of “integration”—it simply wasn’t relevant. Only recently have many Germans begun to realize the extent to which Turkish families have become and will continue to be a part of German society. Until a few years ago, notions of “integration,” “new Germans,” and Germany as Einwanderungsland were almost
non-existent. So what caused the sudden change in public opinion? And, perhaps more importantly, did this change last? Fast-forward to early 2016. Just after the rise of Willkommenskultur, eight Syrian refugees arrived in Germany, among them twentyyear-old Ali. Back in Syria, Ali had begun his
“There were eight of us in one room, and we could only eat three times a day,” Ali recalled. “And you can only take a shower twice a week, and to get there you had to take a bus . . . there were no showers [in Tempelhof] when I was there.” The conditions in the halls quickly became a topic of controversy in the media. In par-
Most refugees who have succeeded in finding both work and an apartment did so only with the help of German friends and volunteers, who both act as liaisons between refugees and landlords and help with the language learning process. Ali’s experience reflects many of these factors. “[For nine months] I didn’t do anything.
“The state wasn’t prepared at all [for the influx of refugees]... They were always ten steps behind the problem. Without the people who were carrying signs, the state wouldn’t have made it.” studies at a university in Damascus, but was forced to leave the country due to the threat of being drafted into the war. After a few months in Turkey, the group decided to hazard the harrowing journey across the Mediterranean to Greece in an attempt to make it to Germany, where they dreamed of finding homes and building new lives. Upon arriving in Germany, Ali was first sent to the Sozialamt, or Social Service, to begin the bureaucratic process of integration. The program dictated by the Sozialamt was straightforward and uncompromising: each refugee received 135 euros (approximately $150) per month and a placement in a refugee shelter, where he or she would stay while his asylum application was processed. Ali and four of his friends were sent to Tempelhof.
ticular, the camp’s barriers and fences isolated the refugees and made it extremely difficult for them to learn German or interact with the outside world. But the problems with refugee arrival and accommodation in Germany go much deeper, pervading the refugee experience both inside and outside of the camps. One of the most serious and frustrating issues is how long the first step of the integration process can take—most refugees sit in a shelter with nothing to do for nine months to a year before they receive an official allowance to stay and, with that, the right to work. Then, even after refugees have received their allowance, they still need to find work or schooling and a place to live, the latter of which can be extremely difficult due to systemic racism in the already-sparse Berlin housing market.
The Gate Vol IV| 6
But I’ve noticed that I’m more practical than many of the other [refugees]. I have friends who still only speak a few words of German.” In Ali’s case, learning German was only possible once he left the loud, chaotic environment of the Tempelhof shelter and wandered the neighborhood, eventually coming across an American library where he could check out books and study. It was at this library that Ali met a young German student who has since helped him significantly with his German and navigating the housing market. Sam Jourieh, a Syrian migrant who came to Germany in 2011, had a similar experience: he was “quickly integrated” into society after learning German with a German woman’s help over the course of just a few months. Together, they would go to cafés where Sam
could just talk, and she would listen—something often impossible for new refugees in Germany, especially those who are stuck in shelters for extended periods of time. Without her help, Sam doubts that he would have been able to make the progress that he did. Today, Sam works with refugees through multiple projects, including teaching karate and interpreting for refugees who still haven’t mastered German. In these positions, he tries to pass his experience on to the people he meets, but finds that similar challenges plague the majority of refugees: the length of time that bureaucratic processes take and the poor conditions in many refugee homes. “The state wasn’t prepared at all [for the influx of refugees],” Sam said, reflecting on his experiences. “They just took people in. They were always ten steps behind the problem Without the people who were carrying signs, the state wouldn’t have made it.” In downtown Berlin, a long, imposing brick building houses the Senate Department for Work, Integration, and Social Issues. Inside, Elke Breitenbach, the head senator of the department, sits at a table in her spacious office analyzing numbers. She works and speaks with an intensity that makes her passion evident—a passion which, according to her, the other Senate members have as well. The problems that still exist surrounding integration in Berlin aren’t due to a lack of trying, she says, but rather indicate the complexity and difficulty of the tasks set before the city’s government. “The politicians and administration couldn’t solve the problem, even though everyone was truly giving it their all,” Breitenbach said. “For Berlin I can speak more concretely and say that we’ve truly had a political failure.” Indeed, many factors have made politicians’ jobs harder, especially in Berlin. By far the most serious and pervasive issue is Berlin’s housing crisis, which reached a climax with the influx of thousands of refugees into the city. According to a 2017 study from the research institute Regiokontext, Berlin would need to have seventy-seven thousand more apartments than currently available in order to “relieve the already tense housing market” in the city. Unfortunately, the crisis seems set to get worse before it gets better as the population of Berlin continues to grow at a rate of sixty thousand people per year. Solving the housing crisis and providing affordable living space for all Berliners, including the refugees, is at the top of Breitenbach’s to-do list. The first step in her plan to secure better living conditions for refugees is to clear out all of the emergency refugee shelters in Berlin, including Tempelhof. In pursuing this goal, the Senate has seen some success over the past year: in March 2017, there were
nineteen thousand people living in one of the precarious shelters, while in September, that number was down to nine thousand. At Tempelhof, only a couple hundred residents remain. Once the refugees have left the shelters, however, they need to have somewhere else to go—this is where other intricacies of Berlin’s bureaucracy can present a challenge to lawmakers. The relocation plan for most refugees is to move into Gemeinschaftsunterkünfte, community shelters, or Modularunterkünfte, modular shelters, two other types of refugee housing with higher standards than the emergency shelters. Gemeinschaftsunterkünfte, for example, have kitchens, whereas emergency shelters do not. Modularunterkünfte are normal houses, except that they generally contain rooms rather than full apartments, making the shelter more like a college dorm than a home. All of the shelters are fenced-in to protect refugees from right-wing violence. Creating all of these shelters, however, is a bureaucratic nightmare. Finding locations, hiring a provider and following guidelines during construction such as fire safety and water regulations all combine to make it a daunting task. One new construction project that has caused controversy among Berliners is the replacement for the emergency shelter in the Tempelhof airport hangars: so-called “Tempohomes” that are being built right outside the airport, on the outer boundaries of the Tempelhofer Feld. Opponents claim that the construction of these Tempohomes intrudes on the shared green space of the field. They cite a 2014 law, written in response to government plans to build new apartments and small office buildings along the border of the Tempelhofer Feld. The law was passed by a popular referendum and forbid any construction projects on the field with the intention of preserving the green space for future generations. Now, many are criticizing the move to build the Temphomes in front of the airport as an infringement of this popular referendum, despite an agreement limiting the Tempohomes’ lifespan to just two years. According to the compromise, all of the homes must be removed by December 31, 2019. While this agreement may seem to solve the problem, many still argue that the price of the project is too high and that the homes will turn into a Containerdorf, or “container-village,” which will simply isolate the refugees more and transform into a ghetto. While Breitenbach and her party initially opposed the Tempohomes, Breitenbach sees them now as the better of two evils. “If we didn’t have this housing crisis, then I would’ve [acted differently],” she said. “But we’re in the situation right now where we can either leave
Issue 1 | 7
The Immigration Process Immigrants are sent to the Sozialamt, or Social Service, to begin integration.
Each refugee received 135 euros per month and placement in a refugee shelter.
Most refugees sit in a shelter for nine months to a year before they receive an official allowance to stay.
pull the people out of there.” Regardless of controversy, while the Senate continues to work on how to better address housing issues in Berlin, the Tempohomes will stay, both in Tempelhof and in other parts of Berlin. The Senate will also continue working on several others issues, such as a Participation and Integration Law that would give minorities, including refugees, more say in their communities. But the work that’s going on in the Senate could take months or even years to complete. In the meantime, many refugees, such as Sam and Ali, continue to rely primarily on the support of German volunteers for integration. Breitenbach recognizes their efforts, and is grateful. “If we hadn’t had this civil society, this activist civil society, then we would’ve gone under,” Breitenbach reflected. “The civil society came over social media, out of nowhere, without bureaucracy, and they got it all together.” “So when it all started with the wave of refugees, a lot of people started to think, what can I do?” Ulla, a German retiree who now volunteers as part of a project to help refugees, remembered the early days of Willkommenskultur as days filled with hope and overwhelming willingness to help. She also recalled the somewhat chaotic nature of those days, as good-willed Germans scoured newspapers
and advertisements around the city for ways to get involved. “[I knew] that it had to be something that I enjoy doing, but I didn’t know what I could do. Then I read a report about the opening of a library here [in the Tempelhof Hangars], and I knew immediately that that was what I wanted to do. I could imagine myself working here,” Ulla reflected with a smile. “But it was hard!” she added, “I came three different times, because I knew I really wanted to help out here, and I thought, I’ll just go . . . but it takes a while to find, right?” The Tempelhofer Feld has encountered such issues since its inception as a refugee shelter. While the park is a large, welcoming, open space, the airport feels angled, imposing and closed-off. To get to the hangars, one must leave the park and go to the part of the airport that borders the street, enter through one of the few openings in the surrounding gate, walk through the tunnel in the outer wall that leads to the airport, and then pass through security to get anywhere near the areas where the refugees live. On the one hand, the security concerns are rational—right-wing violence against refugees is not unprecedented in Germany, with over 3,500 violent crimes being committed against refugee homes in 2016 alone. On the other hand, however, fences meant to protect also isolate, making it even
more difficult for refugees to interact with the outside world. Looking back on his time in Tempelhof, Ali recalled the time he wanted to invite his friend from the library over to visit, and she wasn’t allowed inside. The only ones allowed in, at least in the beginning, were volunteers and security guards. Besides that, “the only people who really knew [what it was like inside] were the refugees,” Ali explained. It was to solve this very problem that the idea for the Begegnungscafe and Asylothek came about. The Begegnungscafe, or “Encounters Cafe,” is an informal cafe/lounge environment built within one of the unused hangars in the airport. In the words of Kathrin Gerstmeir, one of the founding members of the cafe, the space was intended to be “a place where encounters can take place . . . where refugees, Berliner and volunteers have the opportunity to come together, get to know one another and get rid of their fear of contact [with one another].” Along with hosting multiple weekly workshops such as a bicycle repair club and a sewing club, the cafe was meant to be a place where any sort of community event could take place, or where people could simply sit, drink coffee together and get to know each other. In other words, the Begegnungscafe hoped to finally bring the outside world into Tempelhof. The Asylothek was inspired by
Ulla (far left) with other volunteers and refugees in the Asylothek. The Gate Vol IV | 8
a project of the same name in Nuremberg, which combines the German words for “asylum” (Asyl) and “library” (Bibliothek). The small library opened up in the same space as the Begegnungscafe and was meant to be a “place of learning” where refugees could go to practice their German, read books about Germany and Berlin, and even borrow books in their native languages. Ulla has volunteered in the Asylothek since May 2016. In the past year and a half of her
However, while volunteers have been responsible for the majority of integration “success stories,” their side of the story is not exclusively positive. Just like the refugees and government agencies, volunteers frequently have to put up with long bureaucratic processes that turn some away from getting involved at all. On the other end of the spectrum, volunteers who become extremely involved with refugees are often faced with depressing realities of the refugee experience that aren’t of-
one or two people, then that’s already a lot.” Not everyone is wholly uncritical about the wave of volunteers. Mohammed Jouni, a thirty-one-year-old former refugee from Lebanon who works at the BBZ, the Consultation and Care Center for Young Refugees and Migrants, expressed concern at volunteers’ lack of expertise and tendency to take on more than they can handle. Looking back to 2015, Mohammed believes that there definitely was a sort of Willkom
Just like the refugees and government agencies, volunteers frequently have to put up with long bureaucratic processes that turn some away from getting involved at all. work there, the Asylothek has gone from being a library to being a communal space and, more than anything, a network of friends. Initially, refugees living in Tempelhof would come to the library to practice their German and to get assistance on German language homework. After a while though, they came for the friends they met—Ulla is just one of many volunteers at the library, and many are students around the same age as the refugees. They joke around together, share advice for the various stages of “integration,” practice German, and occasionally go out on excursions together, such as a recent trip to Potsdam in August.
ten known to the public. Ulla described one such case of a refugee who she worked with and became quite close with: “I like him a lot. But he comes from Iraq and is only ‘tolerated,’ which means that he has no right to stay. And he doesn’t want to do anything anymore . . . it’s horrible, but I can understand it.” As a volunteer, watching a person you’re working with lose motivation to keep trying is a depressing and demoralizing experience, as Ulla expressed. But that doesn’t stop her from describing the work as a success overall. “Sometimes I’m depressed, thinking that it’s not doing anything . . . but then I think hey, maybe a little,” Ulla said. “I think if we help
menskultur present in German society. “There were a lot of people who went to the train stations, gave out bread, teddy bears and clothes. That was . . . I think that for a lot of people, that was honest. They weren’t acting or playing, they truly had the feeling that they could change something now, and for the helpers who had been working on this for years, that was . . . wow,” he said. “The people just opened the borders and refugees came through. People claimed their freedom of movement. And that was truly a euphoric feeling.” At the same time, however, Mohammed and his colleagues were critical of German attitudes surrounding Willkom
Biking past the Tempohomes and Tempelhof Airport Issue 1 | 9
When can a person ever be called “fully integrated” into a society, and what does it even mean to be “fully integrated”?
menskultur, particularly the sense of moral superiority which the practice seemed to engender. Furthermore, it is important to note that Willkommenskultur in this form was a relatively short-lived phenomenon. “I think that many who helped back then are still helping today. Many others just left—for them, this was a high.” Mohammad’s criticism isn’t meant to imply that volunteers’ work isn’t helping—rather, it’s meant to point out some weaknesses of relying on a non-professional, voluntary group to do the heavy work of integration. One such weakness is that, in contrast to more formal organizations like the BBZ and the Sozialamt, volunteers generally lack connections in the field of social work. Another weakness is that volunteer work is not obligatory—which means someone can theoretically step out at any time. “I don’t want people to make decisions about my life because they’re nice, or for them to make me dependent on them, especially because once I’m dependent, a volunteer can say bye and leave, even though I need him. An official can’t do that.” In order to solve some of these problems within volunteering, the BBZ holds volunteer training sessions where people can come to learn about the various resources that they have at their disposal, to learn more about the bureaucratic process for refugees, and to get support that they can lean on throughout their work. The BBZ and the volunteers both bring certain strengths to the table: the BBZ has organization, connections and expertise, while the volunteers are personable and can befriend the refugees as well as advise them. According to Mohammed, both will be made stronger the more they work together. Zoom back out to where we started—the Tempelhofer Feld. Today, a grill party is taking place, organized by interkular, an NGO focused on the integration of young refugees in German society. This particular event is meant to bring a group of refugees together with a group of lawyers who work on refugee rights, with the goal of bringing the two groups into communication. And, of course, to have fun, eat food, and have a beer or two. The grill party is a part of interkular’s larger efforts to turn the unique landscape of the Tempelhofer Feld into an inclusive space where Willkommenskultur is second nature. In pursuit of this goal, they frequently organize events such as grill parties, movie screenings, and intramural sports on and around the
Tempelhofer Feld. In all of their work, interkular is focused on the question of how different groups in a society or a community come together. Or, as Dr. Dominik Haubrich, one of the co-founders of interkular, put it: “the question of how integration actually becomes possible.” Like most groups operating in the field of integration, interkular has had some successes and some failures—they’ve hired many migrants to become part of their staff, helped a handful of refugees find housing, work and, education, and through the many events that they organize, they’ve created a small community in Tempelhof that is welcoming and diverse. In Haubrich’s eyes, the two biggest challenges that face the organization moving forward are funding, which they need to further expand their projects, and awareness, or Bewusstsein. By this, Haubrich refers to an awareness that integration is not just a process of getting a refugee set up in a new apartment or at a new job, although those are important factors. Instead, it must become a more multifaceted process, with people from all different sectors working on it at the same time. Furthermore, it needs to be made more natural. For Haubrich and interkular, “natural” integration simply looks like normal, everyday life—you go to an event, hit it off with someone, that person introduces you to an employer, and so on. The idea is to create spaces where natural processes like these can occur without being forced. This, of course, takes a long time to develop and to grow, but Haubrich is optimistic about the future of interkular. Interkular is only one non-profit working in a small corner of Berlin, but many of the successes and challenges that they face reflect the general situation in the city as a whole. In the past several years, the phenomenon of “integration” has evolved significantly through the stages of initial Willkommenskultur, reactionary anti-refugee violence, bureaucratic difficulties, and the small successes that have taken place mostly on individual and community levels. While government agencies try to solve the larger problems of workplace integration and shortages in housing, various projects across the city work to bring volunteers and refugees together. From interkular to the Asylothek, from conversation clubs for children to art centers for Muslim women, the offerings across Berlin’s capital seem to be boundless. Over the past two years, Willkommenskultur has gone from a hazy ideal chant-
The Gate Vol IV | 10
ed at train stations to a social process that is both flawed and complex. Change has proven to be painfully slow at times, especially for refugees for whom life seems to have come to a halt, but despite the challenges, Willkommenskultur has shown that it won’t simply fade away. It is still too soon, however, to call integration a success—in fact, ever deeming integration a success or failure may prove impossible simply due to the complex nature of integration as a social phenomenon. When can a person ever be called “fully integrated” into a society, and what does it even mean to be “fully integrated”? To such questions, Breitenbach says simply, “We can say that integration is successful when we don’t need the word ‘integration’ anymore.” Haubrich of interkular agrees, adding: Integration is impossible to measure. Integration is only measurable when it’s not working. Then you can measure it. And when integration isn’t working, the next question is, okay, what comes next then? Then you’re probably going to have conflict. You’ll have terror or parallel societies. You’ll have all of this stigmatization. That’s part of the challenge here. That’s also the beautiful part of it all. You can’t just say why you get along well with one person and not with another. But that’s what it’s about really—to somehow or another make people comfortable. Germany’s parliamentary elections on September 24 acted as a litmus test to see where the nation stands today on this issue, two years after the initial wave of refugees. The German people stunned many onlookers and analysts from around the globe with their overwhelming support of an anti-immigrant, pro-nationalist, right-wing party, the AFD. The party received 13.5 percent of the vote, outperforming even the most partisan of predictions on their side and making them the third-most popular party in the country. Slogans on the AFD’s campaign posters were not shy in announcing controversial positions. One poster showed a pregnant woman and read, “‘New Germans? We’ll make them ourselves.” Another read, “Burqas? We like bikinis.” All were stamped with the AFD catchphrase: “Trau dich Deutschland!”, or “Germany, stand up for yourself!” which calls upon Germany to reclaim and defend its cultural identity. Vandalized AFD poster in Neukolln, a diverse neighborhood in Berlin. It reads: “‘Colorful diversity’? We have that already.” Crossed out and illegible is the AFD slogan,
More than anything, the German election has shown that the question of integration is still a dynamic one, one that is still in the process of being decided.
“Have courage, Germany!” The poster shows various ‘traditional’ stereotypes of German women. This is a sentiment that has become increasingly widespread in the West as a whole over the past few years—the idea of “defending Western civilization” against outside influences that threaten to corrupt or destroy it. This debate has been reflected in European and American elections over the past few years with mixed results. The triumph of Donald Trump in the United States, as well as the initial strength of Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigration campaign in France, led many to believe that after an initial wave of sympathy for refugees, populism and nationalism would resurge and triumph in Europe and the United States. Others held up the defeat of right-wing parties in France and the Netherlands as a
sign that the mentality in the West was indeed changing, and that the West would refuse to succumb to anti-immigrant rhetoric. Germany’s election is less clear in its lessons. While the AFD received a surprising amount of seats—a result which will no doubt affect policies regarding refugees in the country— Angela Merkel and her party still retain a firm grip on power. Furthermore, many of the other minority parties, while they didn’t receive as large of percentages as the AFD, put out strong pro-refugee slogans during their campaign, including, “We must put integration into action, not sit it out.” Rather than revealing a unified Germany or indicating the clear victory of one side of this debate, the German election showed a nation at odds with itself. More than anything, the German election has shown that the question of integration is still
a dynamic one, one that is still in the process of being decided. In the meantime, however, the testimony of Germans involved in integration at various levels shows that a sort of “awareness” for Willkommenskultur is starting to develop in Germany. Only time will tell whether it will triumph or fail—and with it, the idea of multiculturalism as a whole.
The photos for this article were taken by Antonia Willnow
“Decidedly against right-wing hate campaigns. The Left.” Issue 1 | 11
Why does Ta-Nehisi Coates write? Searching for human empathy in today’s political atmosphere by Richard Omonlyi-Shoyoola Ta-Nehisi Coates is the prominent unraveler of American moral fabric. His stand out pieces are critical of the existing American political landscape: they scrutinize its historical underpinnings, they demand reparations for the effects of slavery and Jim Crow, they examine the national embrace and eventual rejection of Barack Obama. Eager to learn more about his mental framework, I attended an event called On Being hosted by the Chicago Humanities Festival, at the Rockefeller Chapel in the South Side of Chicago. The event was interview style, between journalist Krista Tippett and Coates, who discussed his perspectives on race and black identity politics in America. Tippett had a few foibles, such as her tendency to ask for hopeful optimism. This at times seemed at odds not only with the subject matter, but with the disposition of her guest. There were also traces of her spirituality weaved into the conversation, which had
the effect of softening ideas that others might find too harsh. Coates appeared calm and serious, poised to engage in his now trademarked moral criticisms of the United States. As mentioned, Coates is known for his robust ability to pick apart the American moral fabric. Once the listener has engaged with his uncomfortable assertions, he has little patience for idealistic attempts to find the light at the end of the tunnel. Less the stuff of wonkish political analysis than moral treatise, the themes weaved throughout his articles articulate deeply rooted grievances of American persons of color. In a way, they act as a magnifying glass to showcase the frustrations, anguish, and deep, deep pessimism that is thought to characterize the minority experience, the black existence, in America. No person speaks for all black people, but his words resonate with far too many for them to be dismissed as just overly cynical intellectu-
The Gate Vol IV | 12
alism. In a way, Coates provides a counterpoint to the pandering of President Trump on his MAGA (Make America Great Again) pulpit. He reveals details about dominant ways of thought that can overlook, or more maliciously, mute the voices of those who are not a part of the so-called silent majority, those voices within the silenced minority. As such, Coates contributes to a disruption of the mainstream continuum of racial discourse. He makes it harder for men like President Trump to exploit existing racial grievances and emotions. President Trump plays to the crowd, Coates sounds the alarm. Such a writer will attract much attention, and many critics. Among the objections leveled against Coates is the notion that he contributes to a pervasive victim culture that encourages American citizens to file themselves into oppressed categories. This may result in an obfuscation of the inherent agency of
black Americans, and a concealment of any contributing factors to institutional problems that are not the direct result of racism. Perhaps the best example of this criticism is his narrative on the election of Donald Trump, which favored a dominant narrative of antiblack prejudice and de-emphasized the effects of sexism, working class wage stagnation, and increased suicide rates for white males, among other realities. Another objection to be considered is the more obvious problem of “divisiveness”. It’s best to ignore shallow claims of divisiveness which are more often than not used as a silencing tactic. Robust debate is among the core traits of a democratic project like our own. A more legitimate concern to be had is that when Ta-Nehisi Coates consistently highlights one racial narrative, there is a degree of alienation, social fragmentation, and division which may arise if reconciliation is not viewed as a priority. Additionally, these narratives may contribute to the perception of differing minority groups fighting for a slice of the pie, each seeing themselves as part of a disjointed block: Blacks for blacks, hispanics for hispanics, asians for asians, etc. Racial isolation can breed vulnerability, particularly
Coates focuses President Obama’s optimism. At one point, Coates mentions a conversation with President Obama on “straighten up” talk, the kind of talks given to troubled, “hard” youths: “I told him that I thought [straighten up talk] was not sensitive to the inner turmoil that can be obscured by the hardness kids often evince. I told him I thought this because I had once been one of those kids. He seemed to concede this point, but I couldn’t tell whether it mattered to him. Nonetheless, he agreed to a series of more formal conversations on this and other topics.” As Coates alludes to, this passage reflects a meeting of the minds between two men shaped by distinctive, yet equally affecting narratives of the black experience in America. President Obama experienced a diverse upbringing, and was instilled with love, education, and hope by kind hearted white Kansans. Coates grew up in a two parent, black home in Baltimore, Maryland. He came of age during the crack epidemic, with his parents raising him on a foundation of discipline, and a cognizance of the effects of racism. The fundamental tension here is articulated by Coates as that between a dominant tradition of political
ternal conflicts between rosy and dour views of the road traveled. It is important to note that there are other kinds of black thought than those championed by these two men, such as that advanced by women like Maya Angelou, public intellectuals with a more global view, and activists who seek to affirm black agency in an interpersonal way, outside of the context of American government or institutional reform. Many familiar with his work have asked “Why do white people like Coates?”. In my view this a banal question. It is important to understand the problem of black pain being articulated in an eloquent or poetic way. This can at times seem performative, and may even become a form of entertainment. As a member of the audience of the On Being event, the laughter I heard at times sounded a bit like that of people having fun, eagerly showing off how they were “down” with Coates’ assertions. The problem I have with this line of thinking is not that it is unfounded, but that it is unoriginal. I think it inhibits a reader’s ability to engage on a deeper level with who Ta-Nehisi Coates is, and the role he plays within American democracy. This understanding can pro-
Embitterment between racial groups clearly isn’t Coates’ goal, but by so strongly highlighting issues of African-Americans, his writing subtly pushes back against the effort to intertwine one racial narrative with that of when one group is with limited resources to mount a successful project. This could make the effects of marginalization, discrimination, and silencing all the more acute, and may leave one with little to show for resistance taken. Embitterment between racial groups clearly isn’t Coates’ goal, but by so strongly highlighting issues of African-Americans, his writing subtly pushes back against the effort to intertwine one racial narrative with that of another. I’m reminded of the DNC Speech given by then Senator Barack Obama, in which he stated that “There is not a White America, or a Black America, or Latino America, or Asian America, there is the United States of America”. The theme embraced here succinctly calls for a unity of purpose and personal affinity between differing demographics, and yet it’s clear that Ta-Nehisi Coates does not wholly agree with Barack Obama. In “My President Was Black,” an article reflecting on the high triumphs, big symbolism, and last hurrahs of the Obama Presidency,
optimism, which obscures an equally dominant tradition of racial oppression. “To reinforce the majoritarian dream, the nightmare endured by the minority is erased. That is the tradition to which the “skinny kid with a funny name” who would be president belonged. It is also the only tradition in existence that could have possibly put a black person in the White House.” This would also explain why Coates rejects the rhetoric of the light at the end of the tunnel. The dynamic between President Obama and Coates is much like that of two waves propagating on the surface of a pond. When the ripples interfere, they jostle. The resulting disruption, the high peaks and low valleys, is more complex and stimulating than the effects of each wave in isolation. To clarify the analogy, both “waves” are needed to understand the full scope of what has come to be known as the black struggle. This applies as black Americans seek to contend with outside forces of oppression, but it also applies to in-
Issue 1 | 13
vide greater insight into his relationship with not just a white audience, which he himself asserted was not as large as others may think, but with the broader American public. This understanding could in turn provide clarity into how a white audience can digest Coates’ calls for justice, critical discourse, and narratives of black suffering in a way that does not reify the disconcerting theme of rich white people being entertained by black struggle, a theme which we have seen from Othello, to 12 Years A Slave, to Fences. An ideal relationship would be akin to that between a student learning hard truths from a teacher, with no see happen. The Abrahamic religious themes expectation of forced optimism at the end of the lecture. Thus, a stronger and more fundamental question to ask about Coates is “How might the American consciousness be transformed through his writing?” The great power behind his earnest criticism can be found here. Indeed, Coates’ writing rings with a declara
tive purpose of thought that brings to mind a similar declaration from the Bible; “Let there be light.” Not a literal act of creation, but Coates is figuratively creating a space for the kind of enlightenment that he wants to in his writing can be extended to his discussions of struggle, and the racial essentialism that others have criticized within his writing. For clarity, racial essentialism is to characterize race as more than just skin deep, as an “essence” that pervades the very nature of who we are and what we are capable of. It is a problem rooted in the idea that humans created the notion of race, forgot this act of creation, and have now come to see themselves as immutably defined by race. Thus, the critics argue that Coates grants race a greater potency that it deserves. In this, they are both correct and missing the point. He is an atheist, and likely does not truly believe in a transcendent or immutable quality of race. The essentializing of race is a rhetorical device that Coates employs, that performs the work of communicating just how consequential one’s race can be in their daily, lived experience. This notion
pose. Of course, there are distinctions to be made between the two philosophical narratives. Coates’ narrative of American sin does not begin with a bitten fruit in the Garden of Eden. It is more attuned to with the theme of “Strange Fruit”, a protest song by Billie Holiday that symbolizes the sin of lynching. This strange fruit seeds a greater notion of America as a false Garden of Eden. Suffice it to say, Coates’ atheism should prove his racial essentialism and religious themes to be symbolic literary devices, and potent ones at that. In some ways this potency may speak to the question of “Why do so many white people like Ta-Nehisi Coates’ writing?” There have been cynical responses to this question. For some, Coates presents an opportunity for white audiences to absolve themselves of guilt—they cheer and applaud, attempting to affirm their wokeness, but this thread has already been explored by other writers. Another theory that has crossed my mind is a tad more optimistic, but is rooted in a dour view of the mainstream relationship between prominent black men and white audiences. Perhaps the
inferiority, and sexual deviancy. Perhaps this lamentable tradition is where the Ta-Nehisi Coates intrigue emerges from. His writing is not merely provocative, but evocative of a form of human grief that is far too often suppressed. The articulation of this grief is surely not the first of its kind: decades prior James Baldwin stated that “To be black and conscious in America is to be in a constant state of rage.” Originality however, is not the only measure of the power of one’s words. If we accept that nothing is truly new under the sun, then to dismiss a text like Between the World and Me based on its confirmation of this premise would be intellectually vapid. Ta-Nehisi Coates does not merely provide readers with powerfu moral grievances, but also an elucidating personal sincerity which would have been lethal during other periods of American history, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. comes to mind, here now with a modern perspective. Baldwin died before the elections of President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump; his writings could not address the complex theme of the relationship
The chief goal here is not racial guilt, which in some ways can reconsistitute the problems of bigotry, should be obvious, and familiar; it parallels and contends with Christian thought and moral discourses. During On Being, he discussed how those Christian colonizers who came to the Americas fleeing persecution, who articulated grand narratives of a land of milk and honey, would recreate the very evils that they were running from. Thus, his writing is intentionally aware of dominant ways of Christian thought; in The Case for Reparations, passages from the Bible are used to support the titular argument. Coates is adept at employing the language of Christianity as it relates to notions of sin and guilt, and how these problems impede the potential of the mind, body, and soul from achieving moral potential. The Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard used similar themes in his discussion of man’s spiritual movement from a pleasurable life of aesthetics and the ego, to a life bound by a higher ethical conduct, to a life served under the Christian God. In a manner similar to Coates’ magnifying of racial grievances with the intent to challenge, illuminate, and spark critical self-reflection, Kierkegaard saw internal suffering as the means by which one attains spiritual development, a more virtuous outlook, and clarity of pur-
reason that Ta-Nehisi Coates is so beloved by many whites, is that he has now come to embody the antithesis of the historical notion of an Uncle Tom. Rooted in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the term Uncle Tom has come to represent an overly submissive black person, fearful of disturbing the waters of a predominantly white civil society. This fear is then internalized and expressed through passive, apologetic, and inauthentic behavior. More modern iterations of the term invoke the symbolism of an Oreo cookie: a dark exterior (the body), with a white interior (the mind). An obvious point to make here is the harmful racial stereotype, but further than this is a critique of its strict reliance on categorizations of specific modes of thought as “white”, and specific kinds of behavior as “black.” This notion evades the nuances of not only the racial diaspora, but the fundamentally emulative and interpersonal nature of humanity itself. Yet even with this in mind, it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the ways in which black men have historically engaged in a kind of racialized self-restraint, performed out of fear of confirming racial stereotypes rooted in notions of aggression, intellectual
The Gate Vol IV | 14
between the first Black President and a first White President, the latter predicated on the former’s existence. As a political concern, the demand for justice that Coates engages in is a desideratum—it fulfills the human need for self-affirmation. The reaffirming of personhood and human dignity is an indelible part of the black struggle, and has served as the lifeblood of the American moral conscience during the darkest moments of our history. The question of his appeal to white audiences is not the only one that Ta-Nehisi Coates’s writing raises. Another is that of coddling, or the way in which some may expect him to provide them with optimism after his assertions have been made. During an interview with Stephen Colbert, Coates discussed the malleability of voting rights, and the ways in which access to the voting booth has been weaponized to discourage the civic agency of minority Americans. After this point has been made, there was a pause in the dialogue, a brief silence. The usually loquacious Stephen Colbert seemed at a loss for how to respond. He ended with “I hope you’re wrong,” with Coates’ rejoinder being “I hope I’m wrong too.” A similar response to optimism also happened at the Chicago Humanities Festi-
Each word [Coates writes] creates the potential for a transformation within the minds of everyday Amerival Event. Coates was asked by middle school teachers to provide their students with hope during the Trump era. Instead of doing this, he highlighted the benefits of enlightenment over hope, stating that “people deeply underestimate the freedom that comes from understanding.” This may have been what happened at the end of his interview with Stephen Colbert— the potential for hope, but an underlying understanding of a present reality. This need for understanding is why Ta-Nehisi Coates writes. Each word creates the potential for a transformation within the minds of everyday Americans. Coates however, cannot perform the work for people. The same kind of critical thought that one applies to a midterm paper, or to a multi-step mathematical proof on a final exam, should be applied to the nuanced challenges of interpersonal biases and institutional racism in modern America. And the same way that one would not expect a professor to hold their hand through the process of critical thought, one should not
expect Ta-Nehisi Coates, or any other black person, to coddle them through these challenges. Self-guided critical thought can be a powerful personal experience, and is maintained by the understanding that through the period of intellectual struggle and frustration, a more intellectually honest and robust view of race in America will emerge within the individual. One need not agree with every argument that Ta-Nehisi Coates makes, or engage in racial self-hatred, for this process to occur successfully. Indeed, the important effect of this emotionally disruptive process is a broadening of the American intellectual horizon, and by extension, a transformation of worldviews. As others have often noted, changing one’s self is the first step to changing the world. Put more concretely, this process can promote the spreading of a rigorous form of empathy that involves an introspection towards the destructive practices of one group, and is joined by an intimacy with the suffering of the other.
Issue 1 |15
The chief goal here is not racial guilt, which in some ways can reconstitute the problems of bigotry, but human empathy. If human empathy could be made manifest within American institutions, political parties, and civic life, the benefits may even, in some ways, defy rational comprehension. But ending the article here would reinforce the same optimistic entitlement that Coates’ writings explicitly reject. So could this transformative change in human empathy actually happen; would every dayAmericans undertake the daring struggle of rejecting the ugly heritage of racism? Ta-Nehisi Coates might say “No.” If you’re truly an optimist, put in the work and prove him wrong.
The photos for this article were taken from Creative Commons.
An interview with
Jason Kander by Zubair Merchant
Jason Kander is the founder of the voting rights activism group Let America Vote and the former Secretary of State of Missouri. A Kansas City native, he enlisted in the Missouri National Guard after 9/11 when he was a student at American University. He completed ROTC while at Georgetown Law to gain his commission as a second lieutenant in the army and later volunteered for deployment to Afghanistan in 2007. In 2016, Kander ran for the the United States Senate against incumbent Roy Blunt (R—MO) and narrowly lost the election, but gained national attention for a viral ad of his putting together an AR-15 while blindfolded and discussing his support for background checks. Kander most recently was a Pritzker Fellow at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics. He was interviewed by a member of his Fellows Team, Zubair Merchant, a third-year ROTC member.
Gate: How did you transition your skills from the service into politics? Jason Kander: Probably the first way it transferred was work ethic. My first race, when I ran for state representative in Kansas City, was a three-way Democratic primary, and everybody said, “Nice young man, probably gonna come in a distant third.” I went out and personally knocked on twenty thousand doors. And for a lot of that, I wore the same boots that I’ve worn overseas—they were well broken-in, and I physically outpaced the competition. And a lot of that had to do with the fact that I could march through snow, and rain, and heat, so I just keep knocking on doors and any time it got hard, I just remembered how much easier it was than a fifteen-mile ruck march. I think that was the first time that it ever really transferred over. Gate: Were there any pivotal moments in your army career or deployment that elucidated core values of yours or taught you something about yourself?
The Gate Vol IV | 16
Kander: [My army career] taught me something about myself, definitely. As early as ROTC, you have those moments like, “Oh, wow, I can do this,” or “Wow, I do have some leadership traits built in.” I can’t think of a particular moment, but it’s certainly the case that there were times when you’re leading soldiers and you realize that you really are getting it figured out and you have a pretty clear idea of how to follow those army values and how to live your life that way. Gate: Do you think the military-civilian divide is dangerous for the military and for society? If so, in what ways? Kander: I do. When I first came home in early 2007, a lot of people were so focused on Iraq because that was in the news. There was a lot of misunderstanding about whether or not anything was still going on in Afghanistan, and I remember really being struck by that. I thought, if the general public isn’t aware because they’re not being told that things are not going as well as they should be in Afghani-
stan, then how are we going to adjust course and do better? I’ve had a lot of people come up to me and be flabbergasted and ask why I would ever join the military and tell me that they don’t know anybody who has ever served in the military, and it always amazes me when that happens. It’s not their fault, but when it’s such a small minority of people who feel touched by the military being deployed, who really feel like it affects their life, that definitely puts us in danger of engaging at a lower threshold. I think that’s bad for the country, and it’s definitely of concern for people in the military. After 9/11, I decided I was going to join the military and it’s amazing how many of my professors said, “You don’t have to, so why would you?” Other people I met just didn’t understand why I was doing it, but, to me, it just didn’t make any sense not to. It was clear the country was going to war and here I was, able-bodied and twenty so it felt to me like, “How would I not?” It is what my grandfather did, its what my great-grandfather did. They didn’t have careers in the army or anything. Their country went to war and they went, did their part, and came home.
end goal is. He just hasn’t done that. He has no vision of what he wants to do in the world, his guiding philosophy of his presidency seems to be just get to tomorrow. No matter what’s going on today, just put up any kind of distraction, say what you need to say to ease your own personal discomfort, that being Donald Trump’s, and just get to tomorrow. That’s an incredibly dangerous way to run foreign policy and an incredibly dangerous way to approach national security. When you see Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Mattis and Ambassador Haley all putting forward slightly different statements and slightly different positions for the administration it’s because [Trump] hasn’t laid down any commander’s intent and because they don’t know what he wants. That’s a problem because it’s clear he doesn’t know what he wants because he’s not that interested. Gate: And then he’ll contradict them. Kander: Yes, he’ll contradict them and he undermines them. You look at what he’s doing with North Korea right now. Nobody really knows, and I think including him, what this strategy is about, to saber rattle, and, as a result when decisions have to be made by sub-
Gate: Where do you see Let America Vote in five years? Kander: My ideal situation is that five years from now we’ve done such a good job that we’re no longer necessary, but I don’t know if that will be the case. I’m really focused on 2018 and taking it one election cycle at a time because we need to make an impact now. … We’ve been in Virginia this year, and the entire mission is to create political consequences for voter suppression. A lot of what we do in the coming years will be dictated by what we do this year. Gate: A few years ago the Supreme Court made a decision in Shelby County v. Holder that struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 4 is a pre-clearance requirement in the Voting Rights Act that requires certain states with a history of voting discrimination, mostly those in the South, to ask the federal government for permission to pass certain voting laws. Since that was struck down, we’ve seen a lot of the voter ID laws that you’ve been fighting in particular. Do you think we can fix the Voting Rights Act? Or must that come about through activist organizations like Let America Vote?
“When it’s such a small minority of people who feel touched by the military being deployed, who really feel like it affects their life, that definitely puts us in danger of engaging at a lower threshold.” That just seemed like a really practical act to me. It seemed like a really patriotic act to me, but it also just seemed like that’s what you should do. I also was very aware that if I didn’t then that just meant someone else was going to go. I thought that if I could be good at my job then maybe I could help somebody else come home too. I could contribute to other people coming home safe. Once you think about it that way, how do you justify not going? Gate: Where do you think Trump is failing on commander’s intent? Kander: I’ve talked a lot about how it is beyond him not having a strategy, it’s a lack of commander’s intent. I’m sure people will read this who aren’t army. Commander’s intent was taught to us in the army as the guidance or way in which you empower your subordinates to make a decision in a situation where your guidance didn’t speak directly to it. Commander’s intent is the ultimate goal that a superior officer wants their subordinates to achieve and is important, so that everyone is on the same page about what their common
ordinate commanders, they don’t know what his vision is, they don’t know what his commander’s intent is, there’s no consistency to it. And it makes it that much more difficult for them to do their jobs, and that puts Americans in that much more danger. Gate: Fifty-four years ago, President Kennedy was able to deploy strategic patience for thirteen days when we very well could have begun a nuclear war, and now I don’t know if we can have the same trust in this president. Kander: If the Cuban Missile Crisis happened right now, I think everyone acknowledges that we would be in a whole lot more danger than we were under President Kennedy. I can’t imagine President Trump making it through those thirteen days without a whole lot of Americans dying in a nuclear war. Gate: In forty years, what will be the most important foreign policy issue? Kander: I don’t know. And that’s the thing about foreign policy. You have to be able to be open to the fact that the world is constantly changing and you have to be prepared to respond to that.
Issue 1 | 17
Kander: It is entirely possible to update the Voting Rights Act. I had a call recently with Congresswoman Terri Sewell, who introduced a bill to do that. Previously, reauthorizations were passed almost unanimously. There was a time not that long ago where this was not at all controversial, and now we have a President who sees white supremacists march in Charlottesville, Virginia and says that some of them were very fine people. He has changed the paradigm in a really terrible way and it’s evidenced by the fact that, looking at legislation like the Voting Rights Act, landmark civil rights legislation suddenly be come controversial. Can we do something? Yes. It’s easy. It should be. Congress should be able to pick this thing up and pass it in a day. It just takes members of Congress who care more about equal rights in this country than they do about keeping their own jobs. And I say keeping their own jobs because you have a lot of Republicans who represent districts where they frankly made the calculation that if fewer black people vote they’re more likely to win, and that’s
really gross. That’s why we created Let America Vote, to create political consequences for that kind of, in that case, inaction. So a lot can be done about it, but we need to make sure that there’s a political consequence for not doing something about it. Gate: What can we do to restore the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people? Kander: Folks can get involved depending on what state they’re from because there’s a lot going on in other states, and every state has different rules about it. In some states, you can just help formerly incarcerated people navigate the process; in other states, you’ve got to change the law. It takes activism and you’ve got to lobby the legislature, but what we’ve been doing is getting active in places like Florida where they’ve got a Restore the Vote campaign. I’ve written op-eds in places
Gate: What reforms need to be made to the criminal justice system? Kander: There are numerous. There’s a need for real, serious reform across the board, but you also have a need for prison reform. People don’t ever really talk about that but we have this broken system where we send a goodsized portion of our population off for long periods of time, knowing that they’re going to be released at some point and doing nothing to prepare them for that release and nothing to try and make sure that it’s less likely that they return into that system. So there are obvious injustices and inequalities in the system. If you look at this recent verdict in St. Louis, the judge’s opinion made me sick to my stomach. Gate: What do you think is the most important policy area that is getting the least amount
other character that it tracks is a guy named Courtney Massengale, who is more of a staff officer and who is a political climber in the military, and it follows the way they orbit each other throughout their lives. The book is really about leadership; it’s about putting your people ahead of yourself and sacrifice. The author was a marine in World War II in the Pacific Theater. I mean the writing is pretty incredible, particularly the parts where the main character becomes a battalion or brigade commander in the Pacific, island hopping in World War II. It’s an incredible book because it’s just a big story about leadership without having to come out and say it. So that’s my favorite book. I’ve reread it several times. That’s the one that has shaped my thinking the most. Gate: What would a member of the public be
“We’ve unfortunately set up a system now where the money chase is so time-consuming for candidates that it makes it really difficult for candidates or members of Congress to really dig in and listen to their constituents.” like Louisiana, as well, and I just think we’re asking people to re-enter society so we’ve got to give them every opportunity to re-enter society in a whole way. And that includes restoring the right to vote. The idea that you have, for instance, committed a drug crime and could potentially go the rest of your life without counting in our democracy doesn’t make any sense to me.
of focus? Kander: Right now, and this was not true last year, but right now it’s college affordability. Last year it was a major topic in the campaign, and with Republicans in power it has just completely disappeared from the conversation. The reason I think it’s a really important topic is that it’s more than just an issue that affects millennials and people about to go to school or folks just out of school. I’ve been to so many small towns around the country that are getting hollowed out because folks go off to college and the wages are not high enough back home and the debt is so deep from school that they can’t afford to go back to their smaller town and so they don’t. A lot of those people want to go home but they can’t, and that’s really devastating communities all around the country. I think we ought to be talking about it and we ought to be talking about it as more than just a college affordability issue. It’s a rural America, small town, and urban America issue because there are also urban areas where wages aren’t high enough. Gate: What are some books that have shaped your worldview? Kander: One for sure is “Once An Eagle” by Anton Myrer. It’s a historical fiction book about two characters. One is Sam Damon, a Mustang, a guy who was enlisted and then got a battlefield commission during World War I and received the Medal of Honor. The rest of the book goes all the way through Vietnam and follows his life and his career; but the
The Gate Vol IV | 18
the most shocked to learn about the process of running for a US Senate seat? Kander: I think the average citizen would be really bothered, and rightfully so, if they saw the amount of time the average candidate for any office has to spend on fundraising versus getting to know the issues, talking to their constituents, and listening. It’s a real problem and its a problem regardless of which party you belong to. We’ve unfortunately set up a system now where the money chase is so time-consuming for candidates that it makes it really difficult for candidates or members of Congress to really dig in and listen to their constituents. Gate: Are there any issues on which you see yourself breaking from the mainstream Democratic party? Kander: It’s hard to say because it’s hard to say what the mainstream Democratic Party is at this point. But in the past, for instance in Missouri, when I was fighting for campaign finance and ethics reform, neither party was happy with me about that. And I think there are always going to be issues like that—where you take on the establishment, it upsets people in both parties, and that’s sometimes how you know you’re doing a good job. This interview was edited for content and clarity. The author’s views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Gate. The photos for this article were taken from Creative Commons
Marxism’s Next Generation By Brett Barbin
Renmin University of China (trans: the People’s University of China) celebrated its eightieth anniversary this October. It doesn’t hold the international fame of Peking University or produce the same caliber of engineers as Tsinghua University, but Renmin University (RUC) is closely associated with one particular characteristic: its affiliation with the Communist Party of China (CPC). In 1937, shortly after he ended his Long March to Shaanxi Province, Mao Zedong and the rest of the Communist leadership established RUC’s precursor as the Party’s first public school “to bring up hundreds of thousands of revolutionary comrades to meet the needs of the Anti-Japanese War.” And while its name and location changed several times before RUCand the government finally entered Beijing, the institution always maintained an intimate relationship with the Party (apart from when it was ordered shut down during the Cultural
Revolution) and continued to produce generation after generation of dedicated Marxists for the management of the state. While adept and excitable young revolutionaries are certainly the last thing the CPC wants RUC to produce now, its nationally-renowned Marxism Studies program continues to cement the institution’s image as the “Second Party School” (following the nearby and official Central Party School). Moreover, as President Xi Jinping wrote in his congratulatory letter for the commemoration, “Since the foundation of the school, Renmin University has always adhered to the leadership of the party, to the guiding position of Marxism, and to the cause of serving the party and the people, all of which forms a distinctive school characteristic. ” Nevertheless, Renmin professors who study Party functions openly question how carefully its leaders follow “the guiding position of
Issue 1 | 19
Marxism” that Xi extols. Some Chinese academics fret over socialism’s share in the contemporary government’s operatory dictum of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” One disheartened professor even suggested to Gate reporters that if you examine the prominent Party members of today, “You would be hard pressed to find a true Marxist among them.” But the future of Marxism in China doesn’t belong to the old guard. Whether it continues to survive in the Middle Kingdom is a question for those who only ever knew Mao through photos, grew up with VPNs and an internet firewall, and witnessed an economic transformation so monumental that it altered the course of their country and the world. These are the Marxists of China’s millennial generation. “The Communist Party may be regarded as the ruling party, but how do we adapt to the modern person or to most of the people who
“In every respect, a party membership is an advantage with which many people use as leverage for more advantages. What is the Communist Party? What is the pursuit of the Communist Party? What should the Communist Party do? now identify with the concept of liberalism?” Twenty-eight years old and a nine-year member of the CPC, Pei Honghui had clearly asked himself this question many times before. Born at the end of Deng Xiaoping’s economic renewal of China, Pei’s generation witnessed an improvement in their quality of life that he sees as “honestly equivalent to a change that turns the heavens and earth upside down.” Now an accomplished law student at Renmin University, the days he spends in the library researching Hegel, Habermas, and Rawls feel like a separate life from the one he led just two decades ago in Shandong Province. He can still recall certain episodes from his youth like when his “parents bought a match” and “needed to borrow one jiao [roughly a penny] in order to buy it.” And to him, despite all its faults, the Party made this advancement a reality. His family’s condition greatly improved and while he notes that “there are still poor people in China,” he qualifies this admission by explaining that “these poor in fact are not what is traditionally meant by poor people, since a basic life has been guaranteed to them.” Though China’s economic inequality continues to widen, Pei insists the Party’s reforms were going to “inevitably produce a gap for a certain period of time,” but that “this gap is a world economic problem that cannot be solved.” *** Mr. Ge, twenty-nine, a human resources management PhD student, doesn’t buy this defeatism. He thinks this gap in prosperity is mainly a problem of priorities: “The pace of the current development is very fast, the economy is rising, technology isn’t bad, and the military also remains strong, but is [the Party] returning back to the lives of the people? [. . .] Shouldn’t they dwell on the issue of distribution a bit more so that we all feel the
fruits of economic development?” Ge, who grew up in the same province as Pei, chose not to join the Party and, as a result, spends less time contemplating the high-brow functions of the state. “Our most vital interest is the problem of housing prices,” he made sure to tell Gate reporters. And Ge has reason to be concerned. Housing prices in Beijing, and for most parts of China as well, have reached astronomical heights at breakneck speed. Since the Party opened the home retail market in the mid1990s, the price for an average home in Beijing has increased by over 205 percent, and experts estimate a new, two-bedroom home in the city would cost roughly $870,000 (sixty-nine times the average disposable income of a resident). Young people who flocked to large cities like Beijing in search of work are finding it increasingly difficult to survive in a market where apartment prices continue to outpace their salaries. “After housing prices were pushed higher, it made the value of some of the public’s existing real estate or fixed assets greater,” Ge recounts forlornly. “On the other hand, those who were without these fixed assets or real estate before can’t enter this market now and have been gradually left behind by society. At this point, I think it’s been made clear that housing prices have instead dragged China’s wealth inequality gap further apart.” *** “I feel like China’s income inequality is not particularly large, because China’s political goals are to achieve a continuous increase in people’s living standards and bring about a shared prosperity.” Mr. Hua, twenty-six, says struggling to remember the Party mantras he dutifully recited in high school. A security guard at Renmin University who aspires to be inside the classroom rather than outside protecting it, his only exposure to political philosophy or con-
The Gate Vol IV | 20
siderations of the government’s role in society is from centrally mandated politics courses. He has yet to sit for his first college semester of zhengzhike (“Politics Course”)—a 4-7 semester-long series of classes required of every Chinese college student that covers Marxism’s fundamental principles, the theories of Deng Xiaoping (originally called socialist political economy), and the guiding principles of modern Chinese history (originally called Mao’s main ideas)—but Hua can still dust off some Party dogma. “I’ll try to answer, but I don’t know too much about this,” he wavers. “Capitalism, in general, exploits the lowest rung of people in society. The property or material property, the vast majority of which is owned by a small number of capitalists, is not in the hands of the working people. So wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people and most laborers are working for this money, but instead their wealth only occupies a small portion. The power of the capitalist system is occupied by a small number of capitalists, and its politics, such as a president’s policy decisions or a leader’s policy decisions, often only consider the capitalists’ wishes,” he manages to retell. “Ordinary people in contemporary China are so common that they definitely don’t understand Marxism. They’re very simple,” Pei states plainly, seemingly referring to Hua. He also laments those individuals without faith in the larger “political idea” who join the party not for “politics, political ideology, or personal beliefs,” but because of professional bonuses. “In every respect, a party membership is an advantage with which many people use as leverage for more advantages. What is the Communist Party? What is the pursuit of the Communist Party? What should the Communist Party do? No one considers these issues,” he fumes. But Pei’s observation about younger Party entrants may have a larger application than just to those within the Party. “Compared to
a few decades ago, I think the footprint Marxism now leaves may not be as significant, and in the future, there will be a more diverse set of voices,” Ge concludes about Marxism’s place in modern society. Among his generation, he can only recall meeting one true Marxist: “these people are becoming fewer and farther between, whereas three or four decades ago this type of thought or idea was a bit more abundant.” Pei, a staunch supporter of his Party but a byproduct of the free market economic surge of his formative years, reluctantly agrees. He believes the way the Party is currently implementing its vestigial ideology of Marxism isn’t working. “I feel it may have some problems,” he confesses, but that these issues arose when it was “implemented in the form of political ideology.” What he sees now is different from the Marxism he reads in the library. In fact, it “has been vulgarized and misinterpreted.” How Marxism’s modern significance may have waned doesn’t concern Hua, but he notices how the absence of its connective tissue has shifted morals within his age cohort. He’s discouraged that all relationships are now “based on personal profit, and everyone thinks about money.” As his generation’s political interest in Marxism withers, a flurry of Western attitudes grows over it. To repel these
harmful foreign influences, Pei prescribes a program of national introspection, which sounds familiar to Xi’s own rhetorical creation: the Chinese Dream. In many ways, the Chinese Dream symbolizes China’s recent and rampant appropriation of Western customs. The pursuit of wealth accumulation, unflagging self-reliance, and large-scale consumerism have become so normalized and glorified in Chinese society that it felt only natural for Xi to resurrect the American Dream in China. But Pei does not mention these uncomfortable origins in his talking points. To him, the Chinese Dream simply embodies “the prosperity of our nation.” “The Chinese Dream more likely originated from the reality of modern China, which seems to have features of both capitalism and Marxism. There are some capitalist aspects of things in the market economy, and there are some pieces of Marxism as well,” Ge points out. As a hybrid of both systems, the Chinese Dream dodges controversy. Unlike Marxism, it isn’t associated with all too recent mass famines, and unlike capitalism, it isn’t an imported “exploitative” product. A suitably amorphous ideology for a politically disengaged young adult class. Preoccupied with the demands of their
prosperous economy, young people have little time to dwell on the functions of the Party or the role of Marxism in China. As a result of this apathy, the mandatory seven-semester “Politics Course” that many of these college or graduate students take continues to insert itself into their political beliefs and has effectively blurred the line between their personal opinions, Party explanations, and Party rhetoric. While Pei affirms that “theoretically, it’s certainly correct that every person should have the right to protest,” he quickly qualifies this viewpoint by suggesting “someone must be rational” and possess “all of the information” on the topic they wish to protest in order to deserve this “right.” Ultimately, he concludes it is best for the Party to make the decision for the people and “consider in what kind of condition we will allow protests” with a hope of one day allowing some to “be organized in a government-led fashion.” Similarly, Ge hopes for a government that lets “ordinary people play their own role,” but this is a variation on a popular Party slogan pri marily used to explain how Party leaders deliver instructions to the people, and certainly does not imply advocacy for a more devolved political system. Ge wants more citizen engagement at the step of implementa-
Mr. Pei poses in front of a sign commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Renmin University’s founding Issue 1 | 21
Preoccupied with the demands of their prosperous economy, young people have little time to dwell on the functions of the Party or the role of Marxism in China. ocratic, but if he and his generation can only use the Party’s set phrases to describe their personal beliefs, the Party’s hold over political thought has only grown stronger. Nowhere is this influence more present than in young people’s opinion of societal priorities over freedom and security. “If you don’t have security, then, as a matter of fact, you still won’t have freedom,” Ge deduces. “If you are in an unsafe situation, you may lose things such as your property or your life. In this case, you may be free, but if you are deprived of your life, then you certainly won’t have any freedom,” Ms. Xu, a twenty-year-old graphic design major, declares assuredly. Chinese young people are more than willing to accept the premise that stability and security are necessities for freedom. Whether this is their honest opinion or not, the Party has managed to exploit this generational
risk-averse inclination with great success, increasing roadside investigations, eliminating VPNs, and kidnapping book publishers with little public reaction. “I’m so disappointed,” Ms. Sui, a sixtyyear-old educator now living in the United States, sighs after learning of these conversations. “They’re supposed to be the best of society—college students, graduate students, and PhDs—but they haven’t taken the time to seriously consider their society and their future. They’re so much worse than my generation. It’s so sad to hear,” she adds, thinking back to her inquisitive college days shortly after China’s catastrophic Cultural Revolution. “Because we came through the Cultural Revolution, we thought more about the political and economic system and the relationship between the individual and the government,” she describes emphatically, “But the situation in China is better now. Their lives are much
better than their parents’ generation.” Now, most of China’s youth only has distant memories of misfortune from which to compare. In Red China, there are few devout Marxists left. Pei may claim that for the Party “to give up Marxism” would be “to abandon the ruling position,” but Marxism is no longer necessary to justify Party rule. Pei knows that “Chinese politics’ biggest task for the past four decades” has been opening up the economy, not developing its central ideology. Too much focus on politics often alienates or disturbs young people, but a developing economy is something anyone can support. “China is actually being very realistic. In the past four decades, the largest part of the government’s political legitimacy came from the economy. You cannot let hundreds of millions of people go without food to eat or not let them reach a certain standard of living. There would be a raucous revolution,” Pei states
Ge stands outside an entrance to an on-campus apartment building at Renmin University. The Gate Vol IV | 22
Chinese young people are more than willing to accept the premise that stability and security are necessities for freedom. The Party has managed to exploit this generational risk-averse inclination with great success. pragmatically. With economics as its primary focus and without any substantive political ideology to present to young people, the only attribute twenty-somethings can associate with the Communist Party is, by definition, Marxism. But even Marx’s principle economic theory lacks definition in modern China. When the Party and political system are only accessible through these self-evident yet nebulous facts, they become whatever young people imagine them to be, if they even happen to think about them at all. Formulated from their own mistaken beliefs, desire to appear more liberal, and willingness to accept a party at its word
that has only ever economically taken care of them, Chinese millennials like Ms. Dong, a twenty-four-year-old law student, often end up aligning their own perceived theoretical ideals with Party sophistry that, when combined, expresses itself in assumptions like: “We already belong to a democracy, don’t we?” With little awareness and certainly not opposition to its goals, the CPC has taken advantage of the lapse between generations and begun to enact a far more oppressive agenda that many young people may not even notice as the economy continues to climb. Only when the freedoms the economy won yester-
day begin to disappear today may they decide Marxism demands clarification in today’s society. But it may already be too late. “The current direction of the Communist Party is like a car going in reverse; it’s somewhat retrogressive,” Ms. Xu reflects. With a disengaged generation lulled into a trance by the economic successes of the CPC, and without a change of direction from within the party itself, Ms. Xu says she’s “rather worried that North Korea might be our future.” The photos for this article were taken by the author.
A statue of Wu Yuzhang, a longtime Communist revolutionary, behind the campus’s main conference hall Issue 1 | 23
American Mercantilism
How America treats Puerto Rico like King George treated America by Sam Owens After Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, it took President Trump days to respond to lawmakers’ pleas that he provide a temporary waiver for a federal law called the Jones Act,
strikes, why do we not suspend it permanently? The Jones Act, officially known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, sets one simple
The United States had suffered a major embarrassment in World War I, when it had to rely on its allies’ ships for supplies because its own Merchant Marine was not large enough
Yet if the law has such detrimental effects that we must suspend it whenever disaster strikes, why do we not suspend it permanently? which Trump had previously waived for Texas and Florida. Trump ultimately refused to waive the law for the full year that would have allowed for real recovery, instead choosing to grant Puerto Rico a mere ten days. Yet if the law has such detrimental effects that we must suspend it whenever disaster
requirement: if a ship is traveling from one American port to another American port, it must be American-built, American-owned, and crewed by Americans. On paper, the reason for the bill was to shore up the US Merchant Marine, the fleet of commercial ships that a nation can call upon in wartime.
to meet its needs. But to get the real reason behind the law, we have to go back even further. When Columbus set sail for America in 1492, the strain of economic thought that dominated Europe was mercantilism. According to this theory, whoever had the
A group of men survey the wreckage in Puerto Rico. The Gate Vol IV | 24
Crews work to clear away debris in Puerto Rico. most gold was the wealthiest, no matter what else was going on in the economy. This is why when the Spanish discovered the Americas, they became obsessed with sucking them dry of precious metals. By the time the British began setting up their own colonies, mercantilism had evolved. Under the British system, the thirteen colonies could only trade with Britain. They sent raw materials to Britain, where the British manufactured these raw materials into expensive finished goods and then resold their goods to Americans at a hefty price. For a long time, British officials turned a blind eye to violations of these laws, but when King George began to raise taxes on the colonies, mercantilism came back in full force. No longer able to make lucrative deals with French or Dutch merchants, merchants in port cities like Boston had to accept the less competitive prices offered to them by the British. Many of the sponsors of the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party were Boston merchants who were protesting against the king for this reason. So how did mercantilism, which America once rejected, come to be embraced in the Jones Act? The answer is the same as it was in the sixteenth century: someone was looking to make a profit. More accurately, the American shipping industry was worried about competing with Latin American and Caribbean shipping companies, which could often
build and crew a ship for far less money than their American competitors. Seizing upon the Merchant Marine’s embarrassment as a pretext, shipping companies formed an alliance with parts of the military. These united business and defense interests trampled the protests of America’s overseas territories. The Jones Act has driven up the cost of nearly everything in Puerto Rico, which, unlike its Caribbean neighbors, can only turn to American ships to conduct trade with its largest trading partner: the continental United States. That means the ships that do dock in Puerto Rico can charge higher prices. A report by the International Monetary Fund in 2015 found that American goods are twice as expensive in Puerto Rico as in the neighboring US Virgin Islands, which are not covered by the Jones Act. Even before Hurricane Maria, Puerto Ricans were made poorer and their economy crippled by the law. In exchange for this loss, has the Jones Act accomplished its stated goal of building up America’s Merchant Marine? Not at all. According to the Cato Institute, American shipping peaked at 25 percent of global shipping in 1955, but today it makes up a pathetic 2 percent. The Jones Act sheltered companies from the pressures that would otherwise have pushed them to innovate. Now American shipping is unable to compete in the global marketplace, and Americans, like Puerto Ri-
Issue 1 | 25
cans, face higher prices from a worse shipping industry. Maria cut power across Puerto Rico, destroyed millions of homes, and ruined years’ worth of food. Puerto Rico needs shipments of food, clothes, and fuel. Yet until the waiver was granted, a ship docked in Florida that did not meet the Jones Act’s requirements would have been banned from bringing these things to the island. Now might not be a likely time to see the Jones Act repealed. The shipping industry and parts of the military still back the bill, and Trump is fond of mercantilism. But Puerto Rico, at least, needs a permanent exemption. Shipping companies have little to lose: they might make some profit from price-gouging while the disaster is ongoing, but in any normal time the island is a footnote compared to the business they do at mainland American ports. Puerto Rico, on the other hand, has a great deal to lose. Not only will the Jones Act make recovery in the months after Maria more expensive, it will continue to slow progress in the years of rebuilding to come. Sam Owens is a Contributing Writer for The Gate. Opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gate. The photos for this article are taken from Creative ommons.
Filming the Forgotten A conversation with the directors of Lost in Lebanon by Yarra Elmasry
L
ost in Lebanon, a film by co-directing sisters Sophia and Georgia Scott, intimately documents the lives of four Syrians who fled to Lebanon due to the ongoing and brutal six-year civil war in Syria. For a year, the film follows Sheikh Abdo, a community leader in northern Lebanon;
enmities grow,” GroundTruth Productions said in a press release. “These are just four stories out of the millions of people who are struggling to build their lives and find security in the neighbouring countries of Syria.” By following these four people’s daily experiences, the film displays a level of humanity that
GroundTruth Productions, premiered their first feature film, In the Shadow of War, which focused on the impact the Bosnian War had on four young people, in 2014, twenty years after the war ended. Three years later, the Scott sisters released Lost in Lebanon, their second feature film, which was was selected for
“It was the characters we filmed that gave us the courage and the inspiration to finish this film.” Nemr, a nineteen-year-old who volunteers as a teacher in Sheikh Abdo’s community; Reem, an architect who helps organise and develop programs in the Shatila refugee camp; and Mwafek, an artist in Beirut. “As Nemr, Mwafak, Reem and Sheikh Abdo show, the profound psychological effects of war can cross borders, impose great strains on society as a whole, and can be the ground on which new
is all too often forgotten about in mainstream media coverage of the Syrian Civil War. The Scott sisters give faces to the numbers. The film documents these four Syrians as they navigate growing resentment towards Syrian refugees, issues of legal status, right to work, and access to education. It captures the devastating effects of Lebanese-implemented laws on all Syrians. The Scott sisters, who run
The Gate Vol IV | 26
screening as part of the Human Rights Watch annual film festival in London in March, and in New York City in June. Additionally, a shortened version of the film was screened at Chatham House on April 25, while a full length version was screened at Norton Rose Fulbright in London on July 10. The film has also been officially selected for the One World Film Festival in Prague.
The sisters are currently working to get the film screened at a variety of different locations, such as the European Parliament and House of Lords, in the hopes of eventually impacting different governments’ policies. As the Sisters told The Gate, Lost in Lebanon’s release is intended to have a three-pronged effect. They hope it will raise awareness about
“Everybody that we came across was welcoming and friendly, and thus for the vast majority of our time spent there, being foreign nor being women provided any issues for us,” they said. “People were curious and inquisitive as to our stories and it enabled us to meet some of the most amazing people.” However, the Scott sisters did have to take
ing out what footage was appropriate to include, which resulted in the removal of two key scenes of a character’s family members back in Syria due to security concerns. The Scott sisters had hoped to include more footage of Lebanese people talking about personal experiences with Syrians, to emphasize the complexity of the issue. As they
“Our film seeks to put pressure on the international community, rather than attack the Lebanese government.” the situation in Lebanon, educate people through screenings at schools and universities, and influence governments through screenings “with the intention of having a genuine impact on policy.” “We are hoping this film can be used as a tool to call on the international community to try and help Lebanon, as they are taking on such a disproportionate number of Syrians relative to the size of their own country,” they said. “We hope this film achieves enacting some empathy in other nations and triggering them to potentially alter their attitudes to refugees.” The film took the Scott sisters eighteen months to film and another eighteen months to edit. Despite being both foreign and female, the sisters did not feel unsafe or intimidated.
into account safety concerns, especially in regions in the north of Lebanon, where ISIS is active. Despite not initially planning to travel to the north, the sisters realised that it is the area with the poorest and densest Syrian population, and therefore felt compelled to. “By the time we finished filming there we felt completely comfortable and welcomed.” Other challenges when making the film included knowing boundaries with their characters: “We take a very intimate approach when creating a film, so that line can often be blurred,” they said. “It was the characters we filmed that gave us the courage and the inspiration to finish this film.” Additionally, because of the sensitivity of the subject, the Scott sisters had difficulties in terms of figur-
A Syrian refugee family Issue 1 | 27
said to The Gate, “We do not want the film to be regarded as overly critical of Lebanon, as the support they gave at the start of the refugee crisis was remarkable.” Instead, “our film seeks to put pressure on the international community, rather than attack the Lebanese government.” At the end of the day, the Scott sisters want to put an emphasis on the people behind the numbers. “We feel more than ever the need to play an active role in documenting the ongoing effects of war and to give voice to those who become just numbers on our screens.” The photos for this article were taken from Creative Commons.
Dragging Two Rocket Men Back Down to Earth By Aman Tiku
The Gate Vol IV | 28
Rather than lambast and insult North Korea and heighten international tensions, the Trump administration must attempt to understand North Korea’s primary motive— survival. The United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region cannot allow two rocket men to turn a decades-old geopolitical conflict on the Korean Peninsula into a personal feud. Three months into Donald Trump’s presidency, I wrote that a balance between the policies of the Obama and Trump administrations could lead to the best possible outcome on the Korean Peninsula and for US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Although I thought a legitimate improvement in US relations with North Korea under Trump was exceedingly unlikely, I hoped that his unpredictable, oddball nature might lead him and his administration toward positive results. Unfortunately, my hope has not been fulfilled at all. Trump has demonstrated no awareness of the delicacy of the North Korean situation. He has tackled the problem with emotional impulsivity and has no strategy beyond constantly threatening North Korea’s very existence and berating Kim Jong-un. The recent escalation of tensions with North Korea menaces US foreign policy goals and the safety of our allies. Rather than lambast and insult North Korea and heighten international tensions, the Trump administration must attempt to understand North Korea’s primary motive—survival. Kim’s furious reaction to Trump’s insults should not surprise anyone. It has long been established that the North Korean regime is hell-bent on developing operable nuclear weaponry and will retaliate with erratic statements or attempted intimidations when the United States directly jeopardizes that goal. But Trump’s behavior, while equally unsurprising to many, is incredibly disappointing. The president of the United States is tasked with helping to defend democratic allies like South Korea and Japan. Trump has jeopardized our allies’ security in order to go after Kim with belittling insults and massive, overblown threats of annihilation that are beneath the dignity of his office and detrimental to America’s foreign policy goal of maintaining stability in the Korean Peninsula. The American public already knew what
to expect from Kim; now Trump is matching Kim threat for threat, insult for insult and bluff for bluff. In the process, Trump has also reduced the North Korea situation into a melodramatic standoff befitting of two toddlers—but one in which literally millions of lives are on the line. When thinking of different methods that Trump could use to approach Kim and North Korea, a familiar Sun Tzu quote comes to mind: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” Trump does not appear to have tried to grasp the North Korean perspective that Kim represents. If he did, he might develop a more insightful way to engage with North Korea and help achieve greater stability on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea apparently understands Sun’s advice better than Trump does: officials from the rogue nation have reportedly reached out to Republican analysts to better understand Trump’s conduct—and his proclivity for Twitter in particular. If even the supposedly deranged North Korean regime can try to fathom Trump, then we should expect and perhaps demand that Trump do likewise as commander-in-chief. Since the end of the Korean War in 1953, North Korea has been forced to survive in a highly hostile geopolitical environment— even more so after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. It has all but lost its greatest historical ally, China, and has repeatedly heard the United States (especially under Trump) assert that its days are numbered. Given its position, the best possible course of action for North Korea to pursue to ensure survival is nuclear proliferation; for all the terrors of nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence remains a force in international politics today. When Kim and other North Koreans hear Trump describe the United States’ ability to wipe their country and regime off the Korean Peninsula, their determination to pursue nuclear capabilities is only hardened. Underestimating North Korea is the last thing US foreign policy needs in this scenario. North Korea has made the international community aware of several desires,
Issue 1 | 29
including acknowledgement of its government and an end to economic sanctions (either of which would require a formal end to the Korean War as well). Because both aspirations are clearly linked to North Korea’s goal of continued political survival, it is not impossible that Pyongyang would exchange concessions such as these for a reduction or elimination of its nuclear program. Thankfully, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has publicly noted that the United States and North Korea have been engaging in some degree of diplomatic communication through backchannels and other indirect methods. This is a positive sign, but President Trump must stop hampering his government’s efforts in this area for these communications to bear substantial fruit in the long-term. This would require less provocative and unproductive tweeting and more attention to patient, meticulous negotiation with Kim’s regime. The Trump administration, knowing that survival is North Korea’s highest priority, needs the president to aid in brokering productive talks with Pyongyang. Any diplomatic process would undoubtedly take years and have to endure many pitfalls, but treating North Korea’s regime as an intelligent government entity and appealing to its core survival instinct could stabilize relations. Even if such an initiative ultimately fell flat, trying to engage with North Korea as an actual authority would certainly open up more promising strategic avenues to achieve regional stability and enduring peace than Trump’s present inflammatory approach ever could. It would certainly be preferable to having two rocket men hurl petty insults across the Pacific at one another while imperiling millions of lives. Aman Tiku is a Columnist for The Gate on the Asia-Pacific region. Opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the view of The Gate.
Are
lectric Cars our Future?
The normalizing effect of Norway’s Tesla Tax by Carl Sacklen In October, the Norwegian government announced plans to increase taxes on electric cars in the form of a one-off fee based on vehicle weight.The heaviest cars would face a purchasing fee of $8,800 whilst for smaller cars it would be $900. Dubbed the “Tesla Tax” due to the popularity of the brand in Norway, the policy has left many scratching their
October of 2017, hybrid and electric car sales accounted for 60 percent of all car sales. As a nation, they hold the title of most electric cars per capita. This stems from technological improvements as well as government incentives. Rather than being counterproductive, the proposed tax reveals that electric cars are becoming increasingly normal.
ever, free city parking, toll-free access to roads and ferries, and permission to use bus lanes will remain as incentives. Their retention means that despite being faced with a minimal price rise, potential electric car owners still have savings in the day to day usage. In big cities like Oslo, free parking and access to bus lanes can be pivotal, and those frequently
“An electric car no longer constitutes a lifestyle change.” heads. After all, Norway has been a leader in promoting alternatives to combustion cars for many years, so a tax hike on the vehicle they’re trying to promote is surely counterintuitive. Norway has seen a huge increase in electric car sales over the last few years. Even in
Norway’s impressive figures show how their society is pivoting from combustion to electric, fuelled in part by generous government perks. Since the tax system is based on emission rates rather than engine power, a tax is currently not a concern for electric car owners. Even after the proposed tax reforms, how-
The Gate Vol IV | 30
driving long distances will be swayed by nationwide toll-free roads and ferries. Currently, Norway is Tesla’s third largest market in the world despite having a population of just 5.2 million, and calculations suggest that the tax would have little impact on the sale price. On a Tesla Model S for instance,
it would constitute a mere 2 percent of the final sales price. While the tax on the Model X is equivalent to 10 percent of its price because it is a heavier vehicle, it is still a small number when compared to the situation in Hong Kong, where a similar tax was introduced that increased Tesla prices by 180 percent and ultimately decimated electric car sales. Unlike Hong Kong, Norway’s tax is lower and the government offers more non-monetary incentives. The figures for Norway combined with electric cars’ already strong presence suggest that the tax will do little permanent
from $1000 per kilowatt hour to just $227/ kWh between 2010 and 2016. As a result, companies such as Chevrolet, Tesla and Nissan can create entry-level cars with practical ranges. The electric vehicle market can now open up beyond the few who could afford the pricy early Tesla models. There is also headway being made in hydrogen fuel cells research. This technology works by passing hydrogen through a cell and allowing it to combine with the oxygen in the air. The electricity generated can then be used to propel the car. This is exciting technology
“marks the end of the solely combustion-engine-powered car.” Britain and France also announced that by 2040 the sale of petrol and diesel cars would be banned, and China has called for one in five cars sold to be fuelled by alternatives to combustibles by 2025 The proposed “Tesla Tax” indicates that electric cars are becoming more common due to changing attitudes as well as technological improvements. These constant improvements in electric car technology, as well as its embrace by governments, corporations, and consumers bodes well for the future. The
Electric cars are becoming viable alternatives for Norwegians due to technological improvements along with the government’s non-monetary encouragement. damage to the end goal of ending sales of combustion cars by 2025. Electric cars are becoming viable alternatives for Norwegians due to technological improvements along with the government’s non-monetary encouragement. Today the Tesla Model 3 boasts a range of three hundred to five hundred kilometers per charge, a range similar to combustion cars. This means an electric car no longer constitutes a lifestyle change. The price of the batteries has also decreased in the past few years which means electric cars are no longer an extremely niche market. According to a report by McKinsey & Co, the price of an electric car battery went
for the consumer on a practical level because it means refueling times with hydrogen rival those of combustion cars. Companies like Tesla and Nissan are thus incentivized to innovate further in order to maintain and grow their share of the Norwegian car market. This is because Norwegian lawmakers see the electric car as a viable competitor. Companies and countries worldwide are adopting a similar stance. Volvo announced earlier in the year that by 2019 all their new models would be either hybrid or electric. Håkan Samuelsson, Volvo’s Chief Executive, told reporters at a press conference at the time of the announcement that the move
Issue 1 | 31
fact that electric cars are now viable competitors to conventional vehicles because of improved mileage, price range, and practicality means government incentives will eventually become redundant and companies will be spurred to innovate further. While Norway is currently a world leader in this embrace, other countries are close behind so we can expect electric cars to become a norm in the not too distant future. The photos for this article were taken from Creative Commons.
Avoiding the Storm: Interest vs. activism by Claire Cappaert The Facebook page description was a call to action for those with compassionate hearts and open minds, searching for a space to celebrate love and unity. On October 14, 2017, that space would be downtown Chicago at the Nationwide Solidarity March for Peace. On Facebook, over two thousand said they were “going” while sixteen thousand indicated they were “interested.” Looking at the Facebook event, it seemed as if this march was going to be a noteworthy protest, one that would draw thousands and highlight the issues surrounding the city of Chicago and the nation as a whole.
The Nationwide Solidarity March for Peace was one of the many movements that has sprung up to protest the Trump administration and the principles it stands for. On January 21, 2017, the Women’s March was an exemplary protest in which millions around the world gathered to declare they would not be silent, with a quarter of a million in Chicago alone. The Women’s Marches suggested that there was now a loosely unified front established to combat a multitude of injustices and grievances. In the months that followed, the United States saw a host of other marches on both a local and national level—the Science
The Gate Vol IV | 32
March, the Tax Day Protest, etc. All spoke to the same general theme—there were grave issues in the status quo and something needed to be done. Yet on the day of the Nationwide Solidarity March for Peace, a thunderstorm hit Chicago. An hour into when the protest was supposed to start, perhaps no more than seventy-five to one hundred people were gathered. It was a ragtag group of supporters, some carrying posters. A small band was playing tunes. A procession of women in red cloaks filed into the plaza two by two. These were not the thousands of people who said they would be attending in order to celebrate
love and unity. For those who did attend, the issues at stake warranted showing up in a thunderstorm. The causes represented ran the gamut, from women’s rights to racial equality to peace. Julie Jann and Kelly Lennon, students at Maine South High School, attended as part of a feminist club. Jann stated that “there’s a lot of bad things going on in the world right now so we felt the need to stand up and remind people that there is faith in the world and a potential for peace.” Connie Kiosse, a teacher and a writer in Rogers Park, sees that “things today are getting out of control just as they were fifty years ago.” For Connie, gun violence was a pivotal issue. Also present was the Handmaid’s Coalition, a social action group fighting for women’s rights through a platform derived from the novel The Handmaids’ Tale. Dressed in red robes, twenty-five marched through the plaza with signs with messages such as “Keep Your Theology Off my Biology” and “We Won’t Let the Bastards Grind Us Down.” The handmaids made passionate speeches, in which one declared, “the current regime is literally robbing us of our personhood and taking control of our fertility.” For the dozens of people who attended, the issues at stake were important enough to warrant standing out in the rain. It wasn’t a lack of problems in society that kept those interested away; the weather and personal matters surely played a major role in why thousands failed to attend. Yet, did protesting for peace and equality not matter enough that an hour in the rain was too great
a burden? Those who showed interest in the event on Facebook obviously recognized that the issues on the table were important, otherwise they wouldn’t have hit the “interested” button. Not showing up, however, suggests a level of apathy and lack of enthusiasm. Some of the issues being protested were literally life or death matters, such as the gun violence that claims the lives of several hundred people a year in Chicago alone. An hour in the rain seems a small price to pay to raise together voices to encourage change on these issues throughout the city and the country. This leads to another question—if people aren’t passionate enough about the issues to stand in the rain for them, why say on Facebook that they were attending? Social media has given people the ability to project an image of themselves, including an image of being a socially conscious individual that partakes in protests. Associating oneself with a cause on social media indicates to others social consciousness and political action, but what actually gets done if very few are willing to show up? This is all not to say that the presence of protests on social media necessarily bad for the causes. While it might inflate the predicted turn out of a protest, every “interested” or “going” mark on an event page gives the cause advertising; it passes the news of the event on to all of a person’s followers. This, in turn, might lead to more attendees at a march or protest than what otherwise would occur, but at the very least, a protest can have a very visible presence on social media, which in itself
Issue 1 | 33
is an indication of people’s desire for change. In a world increasingly reliant on technology, perhaps a protest is no longer now a matter of strength in physical numbers, but of numbers on social media as well. Yet as important as social media is becoming, it is still important to see its limitations, especially as a tool for actual change. While trends, news, and viral items can quickly become popular and visible, they are not inescapable. It takes simply logging off Facebook, unfollowing someone on twitter, or muting notifications to hide things on social media—including protests or calls for change. By contrast, a physical presence is something that is harder to avoid. Thousands gathered in the heart of a city is a disruption to bystanders’ day-to-day life—something many protesters see as key to really bring about any meaningful change. As community organizers and socially conscious individuals continue forward in the pursuit of a better world, they must recognize the distinction between a digital and physical presence, and how social media has the power to both revolutionize and hurt protests. Claire Cappaert is a Staff Writer for The Gate. The photographs featured in this article were taken by the author.
beneath the veil There are 207,468 child marriages in the United States. Ninety percent of these are girls, most married to men at least ten years older than them. They are forced to marry their rapists, their abusers. In 2017, this is still legal. by AJ Chorpa
The Gate Vol IV | 34
As Heather and Aaron faced each other, holding each other’s hands, they each recited their vows, promising to love, cherish, protect and comfort each other. After the ceremony, they smeared wedding cake on each other’s faces, Heather giggling as white icing landed over Aaron’s lip in the shape of a mustache. By nearly all accounts, the story of Heather and Aaron’s marriage was not unlike any other in their small town surrounded by wheat and potato fields in the valley below Yellowstone National Park. The only difference was that it also happened to be on the day off Heather’s fifteenth birthday, and she was already in the second trimester of her pregnancy. Aaron, the unemployed son of some family friends, was twenty-four and mostly looking for a way to avoid spending the rest of his life in jail. Unfortunately, for as shocking as this story may seem, it is all too common for thousands of minors in America today. When Congress lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen in 1971, the move was celebrated by young people across the country. After Franklin Delano Roosevelt lowered the minimum draft age to eighteen during World War II, the accepted slogan of student activists had been “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote!” Now, it was finally a reality. Since then, eighteen years of age has become the de facto age of adulthood in almost every state. In a vast majority of states, it marks the age at which a person can sign a lease for an apartment, open a bank account and enlist in the armed forces all without the explicit permission of a parent or legal guardian. Eighteen also marks the minimum the age at which people are allowed to marry, or at least it is intended to. Complications arise when it comes to the plethora of loopholes and exemptions that exist in all fifty states regarding the legal contract of marriage. For instance, nine states grant special permission for minors who are pregnant or have given birth to a child, according to a report by the Tahirih Justice Center. In other states, children are allowed to marry at any age, so long as there is consent from a parent or legal guardian. When all exceptions are taken into account, a staggering twenty-five states have absolutely zero minimum age requirement for someone to marry. Consistent exploitation of these loopholes has led to a startlingly high rate of child marriage in the United States, at least compared to other developed countries. According to Unchained At Last, a group campaigning to abolish child marriage, 207,468 minors were married in the United States between 2000 and 2015. While official figures are difficult to come by, most estimates place this as at least three times higher than the child marriage rate in Western Europe. What’s more, almost 90 percent of minors who married were girls, with some as young as ten years old. Most of the husbands in these cases were not minors, but rather adults in their early to mid twenties. And while a
certain amount of minors have been married in every state over the past fifteen years, rates of child marriage are the highest in states with large rural and low-income populations, such as Idaho, Kentucky and West Virginia. Perhaps most worryingly, while the overall rate of child marriage in the United States has declined over this time period, it has remained relatively stagnant in these regions. In the last two years, women’s rights advocates and lawmakers have attempted to rewrite the laws that allow children to marry at such a young age. They believe that the current legal framework fails to protect minors who might be pressured or coerced into marriage, meaning that parents have outsized power to decide when and whom their child should marry. However, these concerns have been met with firm resistance from opponents on both sides of the political spectrum.
However, as can be seen from a number of child marriage cases, what the parent “sees fit” is not always in the best interest the child. Such was the case when Sherri Johnson was married at just eleven years of age. “I got married to my rapist,” Johnson, now in her early sixties, told the BBC in an interview. “Actually my mother saw fit for me to marry him to make the situation of me getting pregnant … to make it look better overall.” Unfortunately, Sherri’s situation is all too common in states that consider the union of marriage to be more important, at least in legal sense, than age difference when looking at cases of statutory rape. Although Sherri’s state, Florida, would have otherwise prosecuted her husband for engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor, because they were technically husband and wife, the state could do nothing about it. Johnson, who now ad-
linked with higher rates of domestic violence, which can leave young girls both physically and emotionally scarred for life. While girls in the United States certainly have a higher standard of living to begin with than those in developing countries, they are by no means exempt from the negative effects of child marriage. In both Sherri and Heather’s cases, having children forced them to drop out of school in addition to having to work multiple jobs to keep their families financially stable. “It is really all the time that I think about what I could have done or what I could have been,” said Heather, choking back tears. For Sherri, the prospects seemed equally hopeless. “By sixteen I had six children,” stated Johnson. “That actually was my life, trying to survive and live for them. It wasn’t even about me anymore.” Both Sherri and Heather are still feeling the
Both Sherri and Heather are still feeling the effects of having their own childhood stolen from them, but there is little to stop what happened to them happening to children in much of America today. For instance, in response to a recent proposal to completely ban marriage under the age of eighteen in California, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered a stern rebuke, stating that it “unnecessarily and unduly intrudes on the fundamental right of marriage.” Interestingly, New Jersey governor Chris Christie recently vetoed a similar bill in New Jersey on the grounds that it was “not necessary to address the concerns voiced by the bill’s opponents and does not comport with the sensibilities … and the religious customs, of the people in this State.” Having to deal with fire from both sides has meant that making any kind of meaningful progress on the issue of child marriage is unlikely at best. “I thought once I point this out and tell people what’s happening in your state, look at these archaic laws. It’s a no-brainer,” said Fraidy Reiss, the founder and executive director of Unchained at Last. “I had no idea that it would be this difficult.” The main obstacle preventing any alterations to the current patchwork of child marriage laws is incompatibility with one of the most revered tenets of our legal system—the right of parental custody. According to the Supreme Court in their decision of Troxel v. Grancille (2000), the right of a parent to have custody over his or her own child is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” The Court’s statement in that case reaffirmed a biological parent’s right in choosing how to raise their child as they see fit.
vocates for stricter child marriage laws in Florida, summed up the twisted irony of the entire situation, stating, “Versus putting the handcuffs on him at twenty years of age, they actually put the handcuffs on me at eleven.” While the laws in the United States are unlikely to change any time in the near future, several other countries across the world have taken noticeable steps to address the issue of child marriage. For instance, developing countries such as Zimbabwe, Malawi, and El Salvador have completely banned child marriage altogether, citing its effects on minors, girls in particular, as noticeably detrimental to their health and future success. While each case is different, the overall data proves their point. Based on nearly every single study conducted on the subject, the practice of child marriage is one of the greatest sources of socioeconomic disparity between men and women in developing countries and for obvious reasons. First, early marriage impedes a young girl’s ability to continue with her education, as most drop out of school to focus their attention on domestic duties and having or raising children. There are also the notable health concerns that arise for girls forced into an early marriage. As it stands, complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the main cause of death among adolescent girls in the developing world, with pregnant girls aged fifteen to nineteen being twice as likely to die from childbirth as a woman in her twenties. Additionally, child marriage has been statistically
Issue 1 | 35
effects of having their own childhood stolen from them, but there is little to stop what happened to them happening to children in much of America today. Currently, the State Department considers child marriage to be a “harmful practice with negative health, education and economic repercussions for girls, families and communities.” The United States has also dedicated millions of dollars every year to combating child marriage through the US Agency for International Development. The question that has yet to be answered is if it can muster the same initiative for fixing the problem in its very own backyard. Ajay Chopra is a Staff Writer for The Gate. Opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gate.