17.1 A Nation Divided

C

Washington University

Political Review 17.1 | September 2012 | wupr.org

My goal... working with others to solve people’s problems.

Studying abroad in Morocco: a fantastic experience

At my Bain & Company internship in Dallas

I love to travel: studying other cultures is a passion of mine

Don’t be afraid to change your mind, and if you do, completely go for it.

Deeksha Bhat, who will graduate in May 2013 with majors in international and area studies and economics and strategy, interned with Bain & Company in Dallas.

Getting to know myself...

Coming into college, I’ve enjoyed the combination of the international studies major with economics & strategy. My education is people-applicable, but has numbers behind it, too.

I enjoy solving problems and love arriving at an answer just as much as I love the ambiguity behind things.

Bringing my story to life...

After spending a summer in Morocco, I knew I wanted an internship and narrowed my focus to corporate since I’d never tried it before. I applied for quite a few positions but tailored my resume and cover letters each time. It was one of those things

A group that really enriched my junior year

within the process I could control, so I was going to make it the best I could. I ended up accepting an internship with Bain & Company.

The interns get hands-on experience by working with different clients and being a part of the research team solving problems.

It’s a great first internship – you get exposure to all of these different areas and industries.

Up next... Continuing to learn. My goal is to continue

within consulting, get exposure to a few different industries first, and then pursue business school.

FROM PASSION SPRINGS PURPOSE

“Start networking by asking friends about their summer – if it sounds interesting, keep a list of those places and start applying from there. ” - Deeksha’s Career Tip Upcoming Events Workgroup: Government, Politics, & Public Policy Internships & Jobs The workgroup will meet for 11 weeks on Friday’s at 12 p.m.: Sept. 7 Nov. 30, 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. in DUC 217 Fall Career Fair - Wednesday, Sept. 19, 3 - 7 p.m. in the AC Employers include Amnesty International USA, Analysis Group, Coro Fellows Program in Public Affairs, Green Corps, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Teach for America, United States Courts, among others.

Upcoming Job & Internship Deadlines Central Intelligence Agency U.S. Department of State Mitt Romney for President and Obama for America Amnesty International The White House Apply and read more in CAREERlink.

1

Editors’ Notes WUPRites, It is our honor and privilege to take over the reins of the Washington University Political Review for the upcoming academic year. As members of WUPR since our freshmen year, we have witnessed firsthand the organization’s amazing growth over the past few years. For this, we have the magazine’s previous Editors-in-Chief to thank, along with everyone else who has given their time, energy and input. This new year marks an extremely important and challenging period in national and international politics; our goal is to continue fostering discussions and debates on campus about the issues that matter most.

It has been an eventful summer. Far from seeking a peaceful resolution, the situation in Syria has only worsened, leaving an estimated 25,000 dead and countless more displaced. In Mali, a military coup deposed the existing government; one of our writers, a personal witness, has an incredible story to tell. Further north, another of our writers offers a first hand perspective on the transitional government in Libya, nearly a year after the death of authoritarian leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.

This was also a summer that saw London put on a wonderful Olympiad. Celebrating diversity and accomplishment, the event also showcased London as a bustling, inclusive and very modern metropolis.

Finally, as anyone with a newspaper, Internet connection or television is well aware, we are in the middle of a competitive election season. Sadly, an opportunity for a much-needed conversation about the path of the country has turned into a mud-slinging match. While this is not unexpected, the extent of the divisiveness has been unprecedented. Whether it has been allegations of class warfare or insensitive and uninformed comments about women, the angry rhetoric has come from both sides. Our theme, ‘A Nation Divided’, is an exploration of this polarization and calls for a more substantial policy based conversation.

Thank you, and welcome back!

Anna Applebaum Siddharth Krishnan

2

Table of Contents National 5

Romney’s Gamble

A Nation Divided 17 Obama’s Lost Religion

Holier than Thou: Why Aaron Sorkin’s Newsroom Gets it so Very Wrong

18 Gun Control is Out of Control

What to Deem the Supreme Court’s ACA Ruling: Serendipitous Success or Fantastic Failure?

Alex Bluestone

10 SCOTUS: The Road Ahead Sean Janda 11 A New Narrative: Conservatism in 2012 Michael Cohen 12 The Illusion of Choice Jared Turkus 14 Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin

19

Why the Wisconsin Shooting Should Make Us All Afraid Raja Krishna

20

Economic Inequality: More Than a Moral Issue Nahuel Fefer

Jailhouse Rock Gabe Rubin

24

Palestinian Right of Return Taka Yamaguchi

Joey Berk

Steven Perlberg 8

23

Jay Evans

Peter Birke 6

International

26

Libya: Building a New Nation Alex Tolkin

28

The Malian Coup D’etat Molly McGrgor

3

Staff List Editors-in-Chief: Anna Applebaum Siddarth Krishnan Executive Director: Peter Birke Programming Director: Molly McGregor Staff Editors: Raja Krishnan Moira Moynihan Gabe Rubin Nick Hinsch Director of Design: Max Temescu

Nahuel Fefer Alex Kaufman Abby Kerfoot Kevin Kieselbach Mike Kovacs Raja Krishna Ben Lash Martin Lockman Andrew Luskin Lennox Mark Fahim Masoud Molly McGregor Zach Moskowitz Moira Moynihan Gabe Rubin Razi Safi Shelby Tarkenton Megan Zielinski

Layout Team: Mitch Atkin Ismael Fofana Beenish Qayam Emily Santos

Front Cover Illustration: Max Temescu

Art Coordinator: Max Temescu

Editorial Illustrators: Mitch Atkin Laura Beckman Kelsey Brod Alexandra Chiu Kelsey Eng Esther Hamburger Chris Hohl Dara Katzenstein Lauren Kolm Colette LeMaire Simin Lim Michelle Nahmad Carly Nelson Gretchen Oldelm Katie Olson Grace Preston Jen Siegel Mia Salamone

Managing Copy Editor: Stephen Rubino Copy Editors: Sonya Schoenberger Celia Rozanski Abby Kerfoot Stephen Rubino Molly Prothero Katie Stillman Director of New Media: Taka Yamaguchi Treasurer: Will Dobbs-Allsopp Staff Writers: Michael Cohen Matt Curtis Neel Desai Wills Dobbs-Allsopp Seth Einbinder Jay Evans

Back Cover Illustration: Grace Preston

Board of Advisors: Robin Hattori Gephardt Institute for Public Service Professor Bill Lowry Political Science Department

Unless otherwise noted, all images are from MCT Campus.

The Washington University Political Review is a studentled organization committed to encouraging and fostering awareness of political issues on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis. To do this, we shall remain dedicated to providing friendly and open avenues of discussion and debate both written and oral on the campus for any and all political ideas, regardless of the leanings of those ideas.

Submissions: editor@wupr.org

4

National

By The Numbers $6.2

0%

trillion 10-year budget cut proposed by Paul Ryan

of black voters support Romney according to an NBC/ WSJ poll

2

2

times Tim Pawlenty has been vetted for VP

times Tim Pawlenty has been passed over for VP

4

$1.1

number of seats GOP must gain to control Senate if Obama wins re-election

billion amount of money raised so far for the 2012 presidential campaign

270 number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency

national

Romney’s Gamble Peter Birke

national

Romney rolled the dice in selecting Ryan, but after his lackluster summer, he may have had no choice.

M

itt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential candidate continues the trend of peculiar GOP VP selections in recent history. In 2000, George W. Bush tapped Dick Cheney to head up his Vice-Presidential Search Committee.

After all signs were pointing to Missouri U.S. Senator John Danforth as the pick, Cheney proceeded to throw his own name in the ring— becoming the only Vice-President to select himself for the job. In 2008, John McCain chose Sarah Palin, the little-known Governor of Alaska who had been on the job for less than two years. Ryan is not a product of self-nepotism nor is he an obscure greenhorn. He is nevertheless an unconventional Vice-Presidential candidate.

The traditional calling card of Vice-Presidential candidates is Hippocratic in nature: do no harm. Vice-Presidential candidates do not win elections, Presidential candidates do. The best VicePresidential candidates simply demonstrate the competency to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency while serving as a glorified cheerleader and attack dog on the campaign trail. As the author of a controversial budget plan that would significantly alter Medicare and Social Security, safety net programs that compose the third-rail of American Politics, Ryan is no mere cheerleader. Ryan has become the star of the 2012 Presidential campaign. Republicans paint him as the hero. The Democrats: the villain. Why did the Romney campaign go so far off script when choosing Ryan?

The dog days of summer came early and particularly flea-ridden for Mitt Romney. His criticisms of Obama’s handling of the economy did not seem to make headway with voters, despite weak jobs reports in May and June. He seemed more like Clark Griswold than Commander-in-Chief in his sojourn through Europe and the Middle East. Most damaging was the Obama campaign success at painting him as cold and out-of-touch with their incessant criticisms of his record at Bain Capital.

Polls showed Romney entered August consistently trailing Obama in virtually every swing state. Under the campaign’s current

strategy, Romney stood to win 47 to 49 percent of the electorate—not enough to win the presidency. His selection of Ryan reflects a campaign realizing it is behind and it is looking to shake things up. Ryan’s presence on the trail shifts Romney’s laser-like focus on the state of the economy towards the contents of Ryan’s budget plan, which has become synecdoche for Ryan himself. The change-up is a gamble.

Ryan’s budget may resonate with voters uneasy with the ballooning federal deficit. But it also thrusts Social Security and Medicare, traditionally weak points for Republicans, into the spotlight. The heavilyscrutinized budget could very well serve as a liability for Republicans come November.

Ryan’s selection could be a product of simple arithmetic. A series of polls in various swing states revealed that only 5 percent of voters were undecided. Of those who were decided, only ten percent said they open to changing their mind. In comparison, about 25 percent of voters said they might change their minds at this point in 2008.

Romney’s choice could reflect a strategy to boost support amongst those on the far right than mine for undecided voters. Ryan excites the Tea Party wing of the GOP, a group who has long wrinkled their nose at Romney. However, if Romney were to adopt such a strategy wouldn’t it behoove him to pick someone like Senator Marco Rubio from Florida? Rubio is a Tea Party favorite who lacks Ryan’s legislative paper trail.

The bottom line is Vice-Presidential candidates do not win elections, Presidential candidates do. One has to go back to 1960 with John F. Kennedy’s selection of southerner Lyndon Johnson for a VP candidate who significantly altered the electoral landscape. What Romney’s choice will do is change the Romney campaign’s narrative. Romney rolled the dice in selecting Ryan, but after his lackluster summer, he may have had no choice.

Peter Birke is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at peter.e.birke@gmail.com.

Akin’s Last Stand |by Peter Birke In an interview with a local St. Louis television station, Todd Akin claimed that women did not get pregnant in cases of “legitimate rape” because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” His scientifically inaccurate remarks prompted a cascade of criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Many prominent Republicans, most notably GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have called Akin to drop out of the race.

Equally as damaging for Akin was Crossroads GPS, along with other conservative super PACs, announcement to withdraw all advertising money from Missouri. Such money had figured to be a key advantage in his attempt to unseat Senator Claire McCaskill.

Akin ignored these calls, arguing Missouri voters and “party bosses” chose him to challenge McCaskill. Akin has embraced his defiance, calling him and his supporters “bravehearts”. Akin’s adoption of an us-against-the-world mentality raises the question of his viability as a candidate. Can he still win without the financial support of the GOP and its allies? Analyst Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report wrote “As long as he remains the nominee, this race is no longer a toss-up and McCaskill is a strong favorite for re-election.” Jeff Smith, former Missouri State Senator and New School Professor, argues the contrary in a tongue-and-cheek response posted on Politico: “If he’s smart he’ll…not leave his house until the election night party, and it’s probably a toss-up.”

5

6

national

Holier-Than-Thou: Why Aaron Sorkin’s Newsroom Gets it So Very Wrong Steven Perlberg | Illustration by Maddie Wells

A

aron Sorkin thinks he’s better than you.

Then again, he always has. But this time, with HBO’s The Newsroom – the renowned wordsmith’s new pipedream drama about the way journalism should be – his unabashed self-assurance knows no bounds.

Coming off commercially successful triumphs Moneyball and The Social Network, Sorkin has been gifted a new television project, in which he gleefully adds some HBO-approved “fucks” to a regurgitated and preachy script.

In The West Wing – Sorkin’s much-exalted primetime brainchild – the writer conjured an idealist Clinton administration redux wherein the higher-ups made the tough and principled decisions, all the while fighting off their precious personal demons. Full disclosure: The West Wing is one of my favorite television shows, so I can say with complete honesty that I was, and still am, rooting for The Newsroom to be good. It’s not. It may share the same peppy wit and moral ostentation of The West Wing, but Sorkin’s new endeavor frankly has none of the same charm.

Just as The West Wing yearned for a bold yet brainy Democratic presidency in the height of the Bush years, The Newsroom laments for how things should go down in the world of modern journalism. Today’s mainstream media, as Sorkin correctly diagnoses, shows chronic negligence, but thankfully he is here to show us how it’s done!

Lead anchor and asshole everyman Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) breaks the BP oil spill story, promptly recognizing its importance while the other networks blindly claw for ratings. During the Egyptian Revolution, the “News Night” staff immediately sees the significance of local citizen journalism. They also pounce on the Koch Brothers, the Tea Party, and Arizona’s immigration bill before anyone else thinks it’s newsworthy. What’s more, the staff focuses on The Facts, and quickly debunks the mounting conservative movement.

Basically, The Newsroom is a retelling of 2010 news analysis done by

After about half a season of watching The Newsroom vomit Sorkin’s nauseating worldview through trite, fragile characters reworking the last two years of actual news, I’ve made my peace with the fact that this show is the most disappointing bullet point on Sorkin’s postWest Wing résumé.

At its core, The Newsroom is predicated on a saccharine nostalgia for the good old days when “great men” told the news. Sorkin yearns for the time when broadcasters had guts enough to deliver the facts with equal parts candor and machismo, ratings be damned. Look no further than the opening credit sequence, where we see our cast of struggling heroes intercut with black-and-white replicas of famous newsmen, all set to a score that Sorkin no doubt requested to “sound important.”

When we cut to the show itself, we see that Sorkin’s Will McAvoy is actually more Olbermann than Murrow. In one episode, Will eviscerates a Tea Party leader. In the next, he takes on a vocal opponent of the Ground Zero Mosque and responds by rallying off a laundry list of offenses committed “in the name of Christianity.” Yes, McAvoy can outwit a Tea Partier, but he doesn’t get to the heart of any new information in the process. This is especially problematic when you consider that Sorkin’s main critique of journalism is that reporting has gotten too lazy, and that we can do better. He offers The Newsroom’s staff as a journalistic ideal, but scoops fall effortlessly into their laps and a week’s worth of drudgery is reduced to either comically graceful or dramatically hurried research.

Indeed, fact checking doesn’t make for a sexy primetime script, but The Newsroom’s most poignant moments come seemingly in spite of Sorkin’s histrionics about journalism (the straightforward depiction of the dangers of reporting in a war zone, for instance). In typical Sorkin fashion, the leading man’s many diatribes sound eloquent, but McAvoy is equally as lazy, doubly as preachy, and triply as loud as any other modern pundit that Sorkin attempts to admonish.

Basically, The Newsroom is a retelling of 2010 news analysis done by liberal bloggers, but dramatized and packaged into an hour-long mutual masturbation of high-minded characters patting each other on the backs for being so damn sharp. liberal bloggers, but dramatized and packaged into an hour-long mutual masturbation of high-minded characters patting each other on the backs for being so damn sharp.

When it comes to Sorkin’s rolodex of grating characters, the gang’s all there: the Good Man with a lot of potential who should be striving to do better and then bravely does, the absent-minded but Smart Girl who works hard in the face of patronization, the no-nonsense Leggy Woman who can be emphatic in everything but her personal relationships, and the Intrepid Executive who loves his people more than the establishment he helped create.

Still, what I find most irksome about The Newsroom, even more than its wrongheaded wistfulness for journalism’s bygone era, is its blatant sexism. Sorkin tells us that Emily Mortimer’s Mackenzie Hale, “News Night’s” Executive Producer and McAvoy’s ex-girlfriend, is a war-tested veteran journalist. She has spent time reporting from Islamabad and “has two Peabodies and the scar on her stomach” to prove it, but Sorkin gives us an incompetent and maladjusted woman who is frustratingly weak.

In one instance, she mistakenly mass-emails the entire office.

Oh, how silly! In a later episode, Will ridicules her for having to clandestinely count out numbers on her fingers. Girls can be so dumb

national

sometimes! This is an award-winning journalist, according to Sorkin, but she is scatterbrained, unprofessional, neurotic, and only looks good when she helps Will’s character look good.

When things get explained in The Newsroom, men do the explaining. I don’t think this is necessarily purposeful, but Sorkin’s propensity to have the men daddy the “girls” is more pervasive in The Newsroom than in his other work. Then again, it wasn’t until he left The West Wing that C.J. Cregg, the spirited female press secretary, became President Bartlet’s chief of staff.

Is there any chance Sorkin would have promoted her if he had he stayed on the show? It has made me wonder if this kind of insipid masculine conceit has always existed in Sorkin’s head, or if it has just come with old age and his increasing distaste for young people, the Internet, and probably the Kardashians.

Certainly all of Sorkin’s characters make mistakes, but his male characters’ mistakes are grandiose and weighty. Will struggles to be a Great Man in an era where it’s so easy to cave into network demands and the beguilement of ratings. Sorkin’s female characters, on the other hand, operate within realm of frivolity. Maggie, despite growing up in the digital age, somehow thinks LOL means “lots of love.” It’s cute, but this is the crux of Sorkin’s chestthumping male narcissism. He can’t even dignify his female characters with proper mistakes. No, Maggie must confuse the State of Georgia for the Republic of Georgia while real journalists like Will toil with the big, important questions of the day.

The most dynamic female character, Sloan (a fantastic Olivia Munn), faces a great quandary in the sixth episode regarding a source she spoke to off the record about the Fukushima reactor, but she eschews Mackenzie’s advice (because, as an Executive Producer on a major network, Mack wouldn’t be good at this whole news thing) in favor of Will’s. Despite her brilliance on the financial crisis, we’re told that Sloan only gets airtime because “if I’m going to get people to listen to an economics lesson I need someone who doesn’t look like George Bernard Shaw.”

When staging this argument to friends and fellow West Wing fanatics—most of whom have embraced The Newsroom—I am met with something along the lines of how “a TV show is, first and foremost, meant to entertain.” I personally don’t find it very entertaining.

That said, I think The Newsroom’s conceptual shortcomings distract from Sorkin’s most apparent strength, which is, and always has been, his vibrant dialogue.

But I am as sick of his jazzy back-and-forths as I am of his whole sanctimonious shtick. “I need something to help me sleep.” “Why?” “I can’t sleep.” It sounds like a bad Abbot and Costello routine. The

brief moments of dialectical amusement are crushed by other plainly self-congratulatory riders that I just can’t get over: Will, the liberal firebrand, is a registered Republican and former Bush 41 speechwriter; “Gary’s a smart black guy who is not afraid to criticize Obama”; the network is somehow in jeopardy because Will humiliates a Tea Party congressman. It’s enough to make your eyes roll, and it’s why people dislike Sorkin’s brand of intellectual, liberal egotism.

For all the criticism, The Newsroom actually boasts a pretty solid viewership. The show’s blowback is likely just noisier because journalism, the trade Sorkin tries to disembowel, can respond in a more visible way than, say, emergency room doctors could respond to ER. When you write about journalists, they write back, but I can’t help but feel like The Newsroom is nothing more than a great opportunity lost by a moldy screenwriter.

Steven Perlberg is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. Email him at sperlberg@wustl.edu. Follow him on Twitter @stevenperlberg.

7

8

national

What to Deem the Supreme Court’s ACA R Serendipitous Success or a Fantastic Failu Alex Bluestone

W

e live in arguably one of the most rigid and ridiculous eras of political discourse to occur in the last century.

And that’s just what this issue has become: in an all-ornothing political election year, this debate has turned completely and utterly political.

Divided into nine titles, the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act (ACA) – or the colloquial Obamacare – is one of our generation’s most contentious political and ideological issues. It has been both chastised and revered for its intended goal: to establish an egalitarian, national health care plan.

Liberal Illness, Conservative Malfeasance, or Both?

As with any issue, there are at least two sides in this debate. Here, we find ourselves with two, unoriginal contenders and, of course, the spectators of sport – the media.

In one corner, we have conservative rhetoric guided by the principles of laissez –faire economics, rugged individualism, and the tea party’s unwavering stand against intrusive government’.

Across the ring stand the progressive liberals. The ACA is their

But regardless of where one stands on the issue, one thing remains clear: President Obama will have forever changed the structure of the U.S. federal government through the ACA. brainchild, and they stand resolute and firm in their viewpoints. They feel they have conceded enough by not passing a universal health care act that looks more European in the scope of its programs and in its general nature.

Washington’s quarrelsome nature obscured the ACA’s benefit to it’s public. Instead, the firestorm that was this summer’s ruling overtook the true intentions of the Act. The public was lost in translation with regard to what the ACA would mean for them while the political elite bickered instead of focusing on their duties.

With the somewhat-surprising ruling that took place this June, we may well have broached the most important campaign debate issue of the 2012 election cycle: national health care reform and its place in American society. So where do the two sides stand on the issue?

Mitt’s Position: Rhetoric vs. Reality?

What would the political atmosphere feel like if the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the individual mandate? Well, for one, President Obama would have lost the hallmark of his presidency. It is important to note, however, that the Right has no intention of retreating to a dark corner; in fact, the Romney camp was given a new rallying cry for the upcoming Presidential Debates. Not minutes after the ruling, Capitol Hill was aflame with rejoice – from both sides. Romney and republicans began attacking the President, some going as far to call him, “the poster child for the nanny state.” Mr. Romney has vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act on his first day in office. At a campaign speech in Iowa, Mitt Romney criticized Democratic health care plans, saying, “The path of Europe is not the way to go. Socialized medicine. Hillarycare. Obamacare.” In essence, either outcome could have been viewed as beneficial for the GOP. However, because the ruling favored the President, the feeling among most conservatives now is that while, “…attempts to thwart Obamacare by challenging its constitutionality were unsuccessful, Americans can stop the law from going into effect by electing Republicans who have pledged to repeal and replace it.” The ruling by Justice John Roberts, if nothing else, provided the platform on which republicans will attack Obama’s leadership.

Their argument is fairly uniform for a party that has an ideology that encompasses moderates and Tea Party alike: The ACA, according to Republicans, is just another tax; it gives government too much power, and soon one will be taxed for not eating vegetables or exercising at the gym.

What many on the left find entertaining is the fact that Mr. Romney introduced an almost-identical piece of legislation during his tenor as governor of Massachusetts. The reply from conservative pundits has been, almost resoundingly, a delineation of the notion of ‘state’s rights’.

Obama’s Folly or Triumph?

After the phrase ‘Obamacare’ was coined by House republicans in 2010, Mr. Obama used the word in a speech, adding, “I have no problem with people saying ‘Obama cares.’ I do care. If the other side wants to be the folks who don’t care, that’s fine with me.”

The Affordable Care Act is sure to be an issue that Obama will not let go of. Sometimes criticized for being too weak and not the right leader for our country, the President needs this to show the American voter that he has what it takes – whether one agrees with him or not – to be an effective President. Perhaps his ineffectiveness in explaining the program to the public has left him shuffling with an air of incompetency.

But regardless of where one stands on the issue, one thing remains clear: President Obama will have forever changed the structure of the U.S. federal government through the ACA. Representative

national

A Ruling: lure?

?

John Conyers Jr. of Michigan said in 2011 that while opponents use “Obamacare” in a derogatory sense, “it’s going to go down in history as a the major accomplishment of the president’s [time in office].”

As Politico reported, “the administration took a gamble when it asked the court last fall to hear the case more quickly than necessary.

That risk appears to have paid off, providing Obama with validation before the November election. But it will also fire up Republicans who plan to campaign on a pledge to repeal the law in Congress.”

The Future, What Future?

The ultimate fate of Obamacare is unclear. If the President loses the election in November, there is a good chance that the Act will be repealed entirely. However, if he is able to win reelection, the plan should begin its implementation in the next few years, not taking into account the various components that have already been put into place.

Without guidance from the public, elected officials are, in some ways, blind behind the wheel of civic duty. Has politics become just a synonym for disagreement? Is there a cure for our divergent ideological viewpoints? Only time will tell.

We may well have broached the most important campaign debate issue of the 2012 election cycle: national health care reform and its place in American society.

What is certain, however, is that the debates surrounding the ACA have only increased the polarization both inside the Beltway and from sea to shining sea, too. With the media to fuel the fire, there have been relentless campaigns by both sides to promote or rip apart the legislation. An outsider looking in, though, must find it strange that this issue is just a microcosm of a larger, drearier picture; in other words, this is only a single piece of the jigsaw puzzle that is pugnacious politics.

Alex Bluestone is a junior in College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at abluestone@wustl.edu.

9

10

national

SCOTUS: The Road Ahead Sean Janda | Illustration by Lee Hulteng, MCT

W

hile the last Supreme Court term had its fair share of important and memorable cases, with rulings on Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law and President Obama’s signature Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act healthcare legislation coming in the same week, the upcoming 2012-2013 term promises to have its own cases with far-reaching implications. Although a few of the most hotly anticipated potential upcoming cases have not yet been granted certiorari by the Supreme Court (in particular, cases challenging key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act or a quartet of cases challenging Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act), here are previews of three potentially significant cases that the Court has already agreed to review.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum revolves around the Alien Tort Statute, passed by the first Congress in 1789. Under this statute, aliens (non-American citizens) can sue in U.S. federal courts for various forms of misconduct that violate international law or U.S.-signed treaties. Although the law was widely ignored for almost 200 years, since the 1980s, it has been fairly regularly used by non-citizens to sue individuals for wrongdoing abroad.

In this case, Esther Kiobel, a Nigerian citizen, is suing Royal Dutch Petroleum, claiming that the company backed Nigerian government troops that committed a variety of crimes against humanity in Nigeria (to suppress anti-oil demonstrators in the country). Original arguments in this case were held in February, but the Court has decided to hold new arguments in this upcoming term. Currently, there are two separate questions that the Court must decide. First, during the prior arguments, some justices questioned whether the Alien Tort Statute even allowed American courts to hear lawsuits for violations of international law that were committed entirely on foreign soil. Second, if the Court decides that the law does allow such suits, it must then decide whether corporations, and not just individuals, may be sued. The Court’s ultimate decision on both issues could have wide-ranging effects, as the Alien Tort Statute is currently the only real avenue for foreign nationals to sue in American courts, and it is actually utilized relatively often. In fact, in the last decade, both Yahoo!, which allegedly abetted the torture of Chinese dissidents and Coca-Cola, which allegedly working with Colombian forces to murder and torture have been sued under the ATS. As a result, a court ruling that lawsuits cannot be brought either for crimes committed outside the U.S. or against corporations could severely restrict foreign citizens’ ability to sue entities or individuals who commit crimes against them.

Fisher v. University of Texas deals with the use of race in public school admissions. Under a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, Grutter v. Bollinger, public universities may use race-conscious admissions policies that take into account race as

one factor among many and that evaluate each applicant on an individual basis. Currently, the University of Texas admits some students under a race-conscious admissions policy that works much like the acceptable policies spelled out in the 2003 case, except UT looks at distribution of race inside various programs and classrooms as well as in the school as a whole. In 2008, Rebecca Fisher, a white Texan student, was denied admission to the University of Texas, and she filed suit, claiming that UT’s admissions policies violated her Equal Protection Rights. Now, her lawyers are asking the Court to either rule that UT’s admissions policy is not acceptable under the 2003 ruling, because of the attention paid to specific programs and classrooms, or that the 2003 ruling was a mistake, a decision that could have wide-ranging national effects. In particular, the latter ruling would substantially change public university admissions, as the result could be a court decision that using race in any capacity in admissions policies is unconstitutional.

Kirtsaeng v. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kirtsaeng is about the emerging American “gray market” for goods manufactured abroad, a market in which many college students unknowingly participate. At issue here is the way that textbook publishers produce and sell textbooks very cheaply in non-American markets that are often identical or nearly identical to textbooks sold for much more money in the U.S. As a result, some individuals buy textbooks while abroad or have family or friends buy them abroad, ship them to the U.S., and then sell them at a price somewhere between what they paid and what that same book retails for in the U.S. In this case, Supap Kirtsaeng, a native of Thailand, imported textbooks from Thailand and then sold them in the US. The textbook publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., then sued Kirtsaeng for violating their copyright and won a $600,000 judgment. If the Supreme Court rules that such actions do actually violate copyright laws, the effects on the ability of college students to cheaply purchase textbooks online could be significant.

Sean Janda is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at seanjanda@wustl.edu.

national

It’s All About the Narrative Michael Cohen

W

hat’s the Matter with Kansas? asks Thomas Frank in his 2004 book examining the rise of American Conservatism. Kansas, once dominated by poor populist farmers with nationwide influence (the Occupy Wall Street of the 1890s), is now a red stronghold and a beacon of Conservative values. Frank argues that Kansans, blinded by fear and contempt for “liberal elitists,” vote against their own interests and thereby weaken their economic and political standing election after election.

Kansas, of course, is a microcosm for a considerable portion of Conservative America. Democrats, searching for the votes to put them over the top, often make the argument that less wealthy Conservative voters should look past their opinions on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and choose the party that taxes them less.

Liberals contend that those in lower income brackets are more likely to benefit from tax-dollar programs ($250,000+ taxpayers don’t tend to need food stamps) and, therefore, should vote for the left.

Conservatives find this line of reasoning offensive, and they put forth an interesting counterpoint. Why does no one raise an eyebrow

While the concept of one’s moral outlook trumping his fiscal predisposition may carry some validity, it does not come close to explaining Obama’s feeble backing from white voters without a college degree. when $10 million a movie actors, Warren Buffett or Barack Obama – who has averaged well over $1 million in income per year during his presidency – advocate for a tax hike on the highest earners to promote their vision for the country’s future? Would that not qualify as Democrats voting against their own interests?

This argument fails to recognize that voters have other important considerations beyond the size of their wallets. Who’s to say that tax rates and government programs are more important to many religious Conservatives than overturning Roe v. Wade or reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act? Might these issues outweigh all others for a large constituent of voters?

Yes and no. While the concept of one’s moral outlook trumping his fiscal predisposition may carry some validity, it does not come close to explaining Obama’s feeble backing from white voters without a college degree (less than 30% when pitted against Romney), a logical indicator of income level.

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in May, only 5% of likely voters registered “morals/family values” as “the single most important issue in [their] choice for president.” Moreover, two of the final four Republican candidates for president in this year’s pri-

maries have serious difficulties with traditional family values. Newt Gingrich notoriously cheated on his first wife with his soon-to-be second wife and cheated on his second wife with his soon-to-be third wife. Hermain Cain “suspended” his campaign after accusations of an ongoing 13-year affair, not to mention no fewer than two complaints of sexual assault. Yet, neither candidate’s moral indiscretions kept them from garnering a substantial portion of the Conservative vote during primary season.

So, what is the source of this disparity? How do Republicans hold 242 of 435 Congressional seats? – their most since 1949.

It’s all about the narrative.

In order to mobilize “non-elite” America, the Republican Party has fashioned a dangerous and frightening common enemy —the culprit behind all that is wrong in our society. The persistent depiction of President Obama as a “foreign, freedom-hating, job-killing, elitist celebrity Socialist” rallies the masses but muddles and obscures the Republican platform, delegitimizing more good policy than liberals give them credit for.

Obama may be out to outsource your jobs, raise your taxes, and force you to perform abortions, but the depiction of him as such is not effective enough (Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight prediction model gives Obama a 69% chance of a second term, as of August 16) to justify the damage it is doing to the Republican Party. However weak Mitt Romney is as a candidate, Americans have grown in the two years since they elected a swath of militant Tea-Partiers and will no longer accept rationales like “job-killer” and “freedom-hater” in large enough numbers to elect a Republican president. As colossal as the upheaval will be, Republicans need to rebrand themselves as the party of reasoned out economics. Americans are unlikely to borrow the works of Hayek or Menger from their local libraries, but, lay it out in a simple and well-reasoned manner, and people will listen.

Michael Cohen is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at cohenmj@wustl.edu.

11

12

national

The Illusion of Choice Jared Turkus | Illustration by Dara Katzenstein

D

uring each election cycle, Democrats and Republicans give dramatic speeches saying that America is at a crossroads and must decide between two sharply contrasting visions for the country. A closer look at both major party nominees reveals that they are not that different. While their rhetoric on economic, social and foreign policy issues differ, the likely outcomes of either presidency do not.

Abortion, Contraception, and Gay Marriage It does not matter whether or not Mitt Romney actually disagrees with Obama on abortion or gay marriage. Abortion is federally permitted as a result of Roe v. Wade. There have been four pro-life Presidents since Roe v. Wade, and not a single one has successfully overturned it. Only a constitutional amendment could overpower this Supreme Court decision.

Given Romney’s numerous flipflops on abortion and contraception, it is difficult to know if he would really move to limit both practices. Nevertheless, even if Romney actually wanted to limit the two, he wouldn’t have the legislative power to do so.

Gay marriage enjoyed similar leniency under Bush after Massachusetts first legalized it in 2004. The issue has and always will be regulated on a state level, something that neither candidate can reverse.

Obamacare President Obama’s main first-term legislative victory was the passage of the Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as Obamacare).

This law will nationalize one sixth of the economy over the next decade. It empowers the government to penalize individuals for not purchasing health insurance. The Republican candidates for President all denounced this law as a broad overreach of the federal government and promised to repeal it after regaining control of the Senate and the White House.

Unsurprisingly, Mitt Romney has been at opposite ends of the healthcare issue. The individual mandate is nothing new. In fact, it was signed into law in Massachusetts by none other than Romney himself. Mitt Romney’s record of health care reform makes him uniquely unqualified to criticize Obama’s policy on this issue, which makes it unlikely that he would be able to successfully repeal the law, especially after it provisions begin to roll out. Perhaps time will tell what role, if any, Romney thinks the federal government should play in healthcare. However, for now, both major party candidates have records that favor government involvement in healthcare.

Budget Both Democratic and Republican parties agree that the budget is out of control but disagree on how to fix it. Obama favors higher taxes, higher spending and more regulation while Romney opposes most

national

government interference or regulation. They are right; the budget is a disaster. The federal government takes in approximately $6 billion daily but spends close to $10 billion. That means the federal government sinks $4 billion deeper into debt every day or $1.46 trillion every year. Nevertheless, neither Romney nor Obama has offered a substantive plan to pay down the debt or balance the budget. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows that entitlements eat $2.25 trillion, or 91% of all tax revenue collected by the federal government each year.1 Obama says we should pay down the debt with tax hikes on businesses and cuts to discretionary military spending.

While tax cuts for job creators and excessive military spending have contributed to the deficit, they are not the core of the problem. It is mathematically impossible to address the debt or deficit without comprehensive entitlement reform. Obama has not stated his intentions to address these swelling programs and has viciously attacked Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize them. If tax revenue stays current, the cost of entitlements alone will

2012 is an anticlimactic election because both major party candidates lack the courage and the desire to bring about the fundamental change necessary to grow our economy, pay down our debt and rebuild our image abroad. be $2.5 trillion per year by 2021, more than the projected federal revenue for that year. If we continue on this course, deficits and national debt will rise exponentially.

By selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney appears willing to address the rising cost of entitlements but his overall solution isn’t much better than Obama’s. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, The Path to Prosperity, supposedly saves $5 trillion over ten years by privatizing entitlements as well as making substantial cuts to the Department of Education. Nevertheless, the money saved from these entitlements would not be used to pay down the debt and deficit.

Instead, it would be used to pay for an additional $4.6 trillion in tax cuts and to augment military spending by 20%. The Tax Policy Center estimates that fully implementing Ryan’s plan would cut federal revenue by 41% ($900 billion per year). Regardless of who wins in November, the debt will likely be close to $20 trillion within four years. While both candidates agree that spending cuts are necessary, they disagree over what should be cut and who deserves tax cuts.

Regrettably, neither plan accomplishes enough to balance the budget or pay down the debt.

Military Involvement and Defense Budget In 2008, then-Senator Obama ran as an anti-war candidate. Pulling out of Iraq was a priority. While he did end the war there, he tripled our presence in Afghanistan, and agrees with Romney in saying we must stay until 2024. Furthermore, Obama allowed U.S. weapons to be used in a U.N. mission to oust Colonel Gaddafi from Libya. Romney and Obama agree that a war with Iran is “on the table” should Iran come close to acquiring nuclear warheads. This warmongering rhetoric forces our enemies to acquire nuclear bombs for defense.

As for the budget, while Obama plans to cut $500 billion of military spending over the next decade, these cuts don’t go far enough in weaning us off our hawkish foreign policy. Romney states in his book, No Apology, that this style of American foreign policy is necessary for global security. He favors continuing to spend at least 4% of GDP on the military while also discussing the importance of balanced budgets. 20% of federal spending is for “defense”. The US military accounts for 43% of global defense spending, a figure Romney seems to think is fecklessly low.

Anticlimactic 2012’s is an anticlimactic election because both major party candidates lack the courage and the desire to bring about the fundamental change necessary to grow our economy, pay down our debt and rebuild our image abroad. Both candidates promise to restore the American Dream. Do not be fooled. Their mutual policies have led to record high debts, deficits, unemployment, government dependence as well as a stagnant economy and violent enemies around the world.

Their conflicting policies have divided Americans in radical political movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party Protests. More of the same from either candidate will make these problems worse, not better. So who’s going to win in November? The polls show that the two are in a deadlock. This is an especially grim deadlock: one that presents little contrast between candidates, little choice between ideologies and little hope about the future of the country.

Jared is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jturkus@wustl.edu.

13

14

Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin

Mitt Romney selected young, bright-eyed Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan has electrified the base with his exhilarating PowerPoints about lowering discretionary spending to 6% of GDzzzzzzzzzz…and privatizing Medicare.

MEDICARE!? Uh-oh. When an old man is dying and CPR and defibrillators fail, paramedics could whisper, “they’re taking away your Medicare,” and the geezer would pop up, reflexively shaking his fist. Clearly, the one thing worse than being called a socialist is actually opposing socialism.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that liberal groups put out ads showing a Paul Ryan lookalike literally pushing an elderly woman off a cliff.

In the least surprising scandal since Barry Bonds turned on big-head mode, horse racing has been tied to organized crime. Police arrested seven members of the Zeta cartel for using horse racing to smuggle drugs and launder up to a million dollars a month. Evidently, the reason you’re not supposed to look a gift horse in the mouth is because there are forty bags of heroin in there. Aspiring drug lords, take note: if you want to stay under the radar, don’t name your horse “Number One Cartel.” The scandal comes at a bad time for horse racing, already faltering after revelations that trainers used steroids and frog juice—a stimulant-painkiller made by squeezing the waxy monkey tree frog—to push horses past their limits. It’s only a matter of time before I’ll Have Another is hauled in front of Congress and accused of perjury.

The Olympics is a time when nations put aside their differences to celebrate Visa, Coca-Cola, and Dow Chemical. Unfortunately, the hunt for medals drove some countries to cheat. Four badminton teams were disqualified for throwing matches, overshadowing Thailand’s domination of mixed

singles. Meanwhile, boxing referees were caught taking money to give matches to Azerbaijan. Officials grew suspicious when they found out that boxing refs were able to spell Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan also purchased athletes from other countries to compete for their team, which somehow doesn’t violate IOC rules. Before the next Olympics, we should try to trade a couple gymnasts for some divers, and anyone who wants Mike Tyson can have him for free.

Facebook’s stock value has dropped by half since its IPO this spring. Still, investors would be foolish to pass on Facebook; it keeps track of every website users visit, so in ten years, its blackmail department will be raking in billions.

Due to low donor enthusiasm and a liberal spending spree, Obama’s campaign is losing the money race. To catch up, Obama donated to his own campaign, sent over 600 fundraising emails, and solicited donations for his birthday. I think that’s impersonal, so I sent him a crock pot. Team Obama also asked couples to put campaign donations on their wedding registries, noting that it “goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.” Isn’t it enough that I wrote him into my vows? It’s only a matter of time until they ask to be written into your will. Be prepared for an email from David Axelrod with the subject line: READY TO DIE? If you want to speak out against a repressive regime, give yourself a name that the Western press will find hilarious. Three members of the Russian feminist punk band Pussy Riot were arrested after walking into a Moscow cathedral and dancing to a song denouncing Vladimir Putin’s sugar daddy relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. The riot grrrls were charged with “hooliganism” and led into a show trial, where the

15 prosecutors accused them of Satanism and defense witnesses were not allowed to testify. The prosecution’s witnesses were ordinary Orthodox believers who saw the news coverage of the girls’ arrest and were offended by their colorful dresses and bare forearms. The Orthodox Church feels desecrated in a way that it hasn’t been since Gorbachev celebrated Glasnost by running through the cathedral naked. To really piss Putin off, watch the video that the girls were arrested for: just Google “pussy riot” and hope nobody types “p” into your browser later. Of course, this could all be a brilliant viral marketing strategy: the public eagerly awaits Pussy Riot’s next album, due out in ten years (nine with good behavior).

NASA rover Curiosity landed on Mars after traveling 352 million miles, tearing through the Martian atmosphere, hovering 25 feet above the ground, dodging a Republican attempt to cut its funding, and being lowered to the surface by a sky crane.

Curiosity carries a laser that vaporizes rock into plasma in less than five billionths of a second; if NASA just classifies it as a weapon, they’ll have no trouble getting funding. Though Curiosity has yet to uncover signs of life on Mars, scientists still believe that they will find where George Bush has been hiding since his term ended.

Everyone, lock up your daughters—but not together! Gay marriage is coming! Earlier this summer, after years of refusing to commit, President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. Just as conservatives predicted, it devalued straight marriage, which is now trading below the yen. The Democratic Party decided to make same-sex marriage part of their convention

platform, and there has been no official Republican response, leading many to conclude that the party is ready to give up on the issue. Without the GOP, the most powerful opponent of gay marriage sells fried chicken. Many social conservatives have framed the issue by saying “I don’t want to have to explain gay marriage to my kids.”

Don’t worry; your kids will explain it to you.

Representative Dennis Cardoza planned to step down at the end of this term, but he suddenly resigned, effective immediately, “in light of the fact that nothing is going to happen [in Congress] for the rest of the year.” The House now has five vacant seats, hardly distinguishable from all the vacant congressmen. Congress is currently on a five-week recess, which is when they take a break from doing nothing to enjoy juice boxes and swing sets. If Congress can stay out of town even longer, their approval rating may reach double digits.

The US and Israel have teamed up to cyber-bugger Iran, hitting it with virus after virus. Stuxnet made uranium enrichment centrifuges tear themselves apart, Flame watched nuclear sites and stole information over Bluetooth, Wiper slicked up Oil Ministry hard drives, Gauss stole banking information, and an unnamed virus blasted ACDC (“Thunderstruck”) on nuclear facility computers, just to rub it in. Either US-Israeli cyberforces are showing off, or Iranian nuclear scientists need to stop looking at kinky porn sites.

Andrew Luskin is a senior. His words are so explosive that Saddam tried to buy them. He can be reached at luskin@gmail.com.

16

A Nation Divided

2400 Occupy spinoffs.

Max Temescu

A Nation Divided

Obama’s Lost Religion Jay Evans

I

n 2012, Barack Obama managed to unite Christian leaders around the country in open opposition to him. Clergy composed lawsuits and anti-Obama campaigns while Obama refused to engage the very people he said he would represent in a speech in 2006. Obama is a devout Christian, but he has sidelined the leaders who helped elect him in 2008 to pursue his own policy agendas. His recent actions towards Catholic bishops and other pro-traditional marriage clergy suggest Obama endorses faith leaders he agrees with and becomes reticent with those he doesn’t. If Obama were a private citizen, it would be a non-issue. Casting out other beliefs but retaining your own is the definition of faith. But Obama is not a private citizen. He’s supposed to be a non-partisan leader who is able to rise above, something he has not done with religious leaders this year.

Last January, the Health and Human Services (HHS) announced its mandate would not extend its conscience exemption to many religious organizations, instead keeping its narrow definition of “church” to only places of worship. The HHS now mandates organizations such as Catholic hospitals and charities to provide health insurance plans for their employees that include free coverage for contraception and sterilization. Obama calls the mandate “fair”; Catholic bishops call it an egregious assault on religious freedom. Legal questions aside, Obama failed to consider and dialogue with a faith that has been campaigning against contraception for the better part of the last century.

The HHS did offer a concession, announcing that insurance companies needed to bear the cost, amounting to a technicality that did not quell the theological issues at the heart of the debate. No conferences have been called, no telephone calls trying to reconcile. Obama spurned Catholic leaders, culminating in scathing editorials and the Fortnight of Freedom, a two week series of vigils and feasts the bishops created to “save our religious freedom.”

Then, Obama endorsed gay marriage. Obama did say he consulted with his “spiritual leaders” for guidance before going ahead with the position he was always going to take. After the announcement, Obama called roughly eight black Christian leaders to placate them, but not to debate with them. His efforts went unheeded as black pastors organized an anti-Obama campaign in early August to oppose his position on gay marriage and nothing else. The coalition of pastors do have Republican ties, but if they were motivated by purely ideological reasons rather than theological thinking, then the debate boils down to a strict partisan divide (Democrats officially incorporated gay marriage into their platform soon after.) Obama’s actions either leave him on bad theological terms with the pastors or on bad partisan terms -- probably both, in reality. Even though many religious leaders still debate the merits of gay marriage, Obama moved on to other issues, curtailing the debate.

Obama continually emphasizes his Christian faith while disregarding other Christians’ views.

Overall, Obama seems content with his actions. His own faith council is defunct, showing his reluctance to engage with religious leaders at the same level he did before his 2008 election. Politico reports: “The president’s first Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships delivered a 163-page report in March 2010 and then disbanded. The second council has waited more than a year for a full slate of appointees and has yet to meet. And the hottest issue — whether religious groups that receive public money can discriminate in hiring — remains unresolved more than three years after Obama promised to address it.”

Obama emphasizes his Christian faith while disregarding other Christians’ views. He holds prayer dinners, hosts religious leaders of all faiths, and will dine with Cardinal Dolan at the Al Smith Dinner in October while Dolan and other bishops are suing his administration. Obama has not eschewed all religious leaders, only those with whom he disagrees. Is a president’s faith a license to justify his policies, or a signal that he has the theological framework to engage with citizens in one of the most religiously diverse countries in the nation?

However, do not expect this to affect his next election. AfricanAmericans consistently vote Democrat, and the gay marriage issue is not enough to sway a significant portion. Many lay Catholics approve of contraceptives. The overall “Catholic vote” splits evenly along party lines, although a majority voted for Obama in 2008, contributing to his win. Obama’s mishandling of the HHS mandate may sway a few Catholic swing voters, but the lasting effect will be lawsuits and a prolonged battle for the rest of Obama’s tenure.

Jay Evans is a Senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jeevans@wustl.edu.

17

18

A Nation Divided

Gun Control is Out of Control Joey Berk

T

he July 20th shooting in Aurora, Colorado left the country stunned. James Holmes, a dropout Ph.D. Student at the University of Colorado, entered a movie theater with military grade assault weapons, high capacity magazines and left 12 dead and 59 injured - all while wearing riot gear. All of these weapons and equipment were purchased legally through the relaxed gun laws we adore in our country. A devastating national tragedy such as this was quick to attract attention from politicos and elected officials alike.

And what have they done so far? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. 12 dead, 59 injured and...nothing.

Throughout all of the public commentary by our elected officials it was difficult to find any mention of gun control issues. Both President Obama and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney made statements that solely addressed the sadness of such an event while leaving out any mention of possible legislation.

Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert even went so far as to blame the shooting on factors completely independent of gun legislation. Gohmert claimed an erosion of Judeo-Cristian beliefs and the lack of others carrying concealed guns in the movie theater were the culprits in this story. Why is there so much avoidance of the gun control debate? The key lies in the numbers.

Today, just 26% favor an all-out ban on handguns, a major decline from 60% in 1959 according to a Gallup survey. Additionally, only 43% of Americans favor outlawing assault rifles, while 53% are opposed.

With nearly one in two Americans having a gun in their home it is no surprise that 55% support making gun laws either less strict, or keeping them where they are now. With a Presidential election on the horizon, it is no wonder nobody want to go against the numbers. This abhorrent mindset must cease to stand. Members of the government are elected to represent and protect the people, not their own personal interests. They are supposed to stand taller than the people, see what we cannot see and make decisions that are for the betterment of the country. Instead, they resolve to win elections at the cost of American lives.

Gun supporting Americans cannot continue to get their way when all of us can remember the shootings of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in January 2011, Virginia Tech in April 2007 and Columbine in April 1999. What have been the national trends regarding gun control as a result? In September 2004 the Federal Assault Weapon ban expired making it legal once again to purchase assault weapons in the U.S. In June 2008 the Supreme Court struck down the Washington D.C. handgun ban claiming the second amendment, which protects the right to bear arms, applies to federal enclaves.

In June 2010 the Supreme Court struck down the Chicago handgun ban claiming the second amendment also applies to individual states. Furthermore, President Obama has taken no action to slow the deregulation of firearms. Going as far back as 2009 when Obama first took office, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed the President planned to renew the assault weapons ban. Quickly thereafter, the

White House discredited this, announcing there were already adequate laws in place. After his first year in office, the President received a failing grade from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Today, there is not a word regarding gun control on Obama’s re-election website, which may be shocking to some at the NRA who continuously claim that the President is part of a conspiracy to destroy the second amendment in a second term. With all rhetoric and no action, the wave of gun leniency and legalization continues and the number of gun related violent events committed with legally purchased weapons continues to rise.

In the aftermath of the Colorado massacre, it is evident that there were multiple failures that lead up to the fatal shooting. No single issue caused this massacre, but rather a compilation of many. Despite confounding factors, gun control could still go a long way in preventing something like this from happening again. It is now known that James Holmes suffers from mental illness that may have contributed to his actions. He was clearly set on carrying out his attack, having planned it for weeks. Therefore, removing access to the firearms and stockpiles of ammunition he easily obtained would have at least slowed down his progress. Congressman Gohmert, along with others, argue that one reason removing access to guns would be disadvantageous to solving gun violence is that people would not have guns to defend themselves - a mutually assured destruction type argument. Unfortunately, no amount of concealed weapons in that Colorado theater would have prevented Holmes from carrying out his attack. It only would have resulted in more deaths or injuries. More guns to defend ourselves is not what we need. We need more stringent background checks, longer waiting periods and a renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. Removing weapons from society, not adding them, is the clear path to preventing future gun violence.

Members of the government resolve to win elections at the cost of American lives.

Joey Berk is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences.

He can be reached at jdberk@wustl.edu.

A Nation Divided

Why the Wisconsin Shooting Should Make Us All Afraid Raja Krishna

O

n Friday, July 20th, 2012, James Eagen Holmes walked into a Colorado movie theater and opened fire on a crowd of confused and terrified moviegoers. On Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 17 days later, Wade Michael Page walked into a Wisconsin gurdwara—a Sikh place of worship—and opened fire on scores of unsuspecting and innocent Sikh worshippers.

After both tragedies, the White House released very similar statements from President Obama. Not only did they strike the same melancholy “mourner-in-chief ” chord, but they were also comparable in length and rhetoric. However, in Colorado, both presidential candidates chose to suspend their campaigns for several days after the shooting, whereas after the Wisconsin shooting, they did not go

laudable to give Sikhs the chance to speak to millions of American viewers about their religion and culture. Unfortunately, the networks also succeeded in marginalizing the very guests they were providing with such a powerful national stage. For example, CNN chose to seat a Sikh spokesperson on one end of an oblong table, with a host of four or five other reporters and anchors seated at the other end, each asking innocent questions about the Sikh religion. The visual separation of the CNN reporters from the Sikh individual was enough to automatically evoke an “us-and-them” or “you people” dynamic in the interview setting. The host of the show went even farther when she told the Sikh man that she was “deeply sorry for your loss,” as if the Sikh community was the only one damaged by the shooting.*

Unfortunately, the networks succeeded in marginalizing the very guests they were providing with such a powerful national stage.

as far, opting only to pull down attack ads airing in the state. The media pickup on the president’s Aurora statement was exponentially higher than its pickup on the Wisconsin statement, leading to the campaigns’ respective decisions in each state. The logical follow-up question, then, is this: why did the news media react so differently to the two shootings?

Of course, there are several ways to explain why the gurdwara shooting did not stay in the news cycle longer, but the most disturbing one sounds innocuous: the Colorado shooting was just plain more interesting. After all, the sickening “logic” behind the Wisconsin shooting is easy to discern. It was a clear-cut hate crime, spurred by misinformation and rampant stereotyping of the Sikh community.

By contrast, the shooting in Colorado was raw and bone-chilling.

The fact that a single man was able to stroll into a movie theater and open fire makes us all fearful.

It is that last part about the Colorado shooting making us all afraid that makes me afraid. As I watched coverage of the Wisconsin shootings, evidence for this explanation began to amass. On all three major news outlets—CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News—the major anchors invited representatives from organizations like the Sikh Coalition to their programs to discuss their religions. Of course, it was

Think about that. The Aurora tragedy was framed as a national one, a unifying point for all Americans to mourn, and to remember to put aside our differences. Just weeks later, the Wisconsin tragedy was framed as the victimization of a small sliver of a population of individuals that is living among us, but that is not quite us—a reminder of the very differences Aurora coverage asked us to put aside. Many of the same people who argue that the Colorado shooting was preventable through increased regulation and background checks simply accept hate crimes as part of a society as large as ours. Instead, we need to recognize that the way we talk about groups can influence the way we think about them.

We understand that a white supremacist targeted the Sikhs because of their differences, but saying that the slaughter of Sikhs is wrong is only the first step. If we don’t begin to recognize tragedies like this as American problems, we risk marginalizing our diversity instead of welcoming it. We risk losing the values upon which our country prides itself. To me, that’s just as scary as anything Wade Michael Page or James Eagen Holmes could have ever dreamed of doing. *To be fair, CNN published a fantastic opinion piece on its website called “Today, we are all American Sikhs.” Nevertheless, CNN’s and other networks’ television coverage of the shooting overshadowed the important message in the opinion piece.

Raja Krishna is a sophomore College of Arts and Sciences.

He can be reached at anirudh.krishna@wustl.edu.

19

20 A Nation Divided

Economic Inequality: More than a Moral Issue Nahuel Fefer

T

he public dialogue regarding economic inequality consistently addresses it as a moral issue. Liberals paint the “1%” as selfish and greedy, and excessive inequality as fundamentally unjust.

Conservatives often respond that inequality is natural, and that redistributive efforts on the part of the government promote complacency and laziness – un-American ideals. This debate is an important one, as it will help define who we are as a nation and as a people, but it also misses a huge side of the issue, namely, the huge macroeconomic impact of inequality.

Whether conservative or liberal, most economists agree on a few basic facts that help frame the debate surrounding inequality in the United States. First: in terms of economic inequality, the United States is an anomaly among developed nations. Our after tax Gini coefficient is .38 - .08 higher than that of Germany and France, .05 higher than that of Japan, and .13 higher than that of Norway, which enjoys an economy which grew throughout the recession, and boasts of a budget surplus of 13.6%. In fact the United State’s Gini coefficient is closest to that of nations like Portugal, Vietnam, Tanzania, and Iran. Second: even in comparison with it’s own history, the United States is currently experiencing record levels of income inequality.

The Congressional Budget Office notes that, between 1979 and 2007 “The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income” and that, “Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population”, this resulted in the United States’ Gini coefficient rising .06 from the 1970s to the present day. Third: partly as a result of the widening gap between rich and poor, the American dream is disappearing: Japan, Pakistan, New Zealand and Singapore, not to mention most of Western Europe have higher rates of economic mobility than the United States.

Steagall Act in 1999, under a Democratic president, brought down the wall that had separated commercial and investment banking since 1933 and paved the way to the financial crisis by encouraging Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors’ money.

Meanwhile, lobbying has given special interests outsized influence over policy making for centuries. One particularly nefarious form in which this is realized is the revolving door between the Capitol and K Street (the Wall Street of lobbying). Since 1998, approximately 43% of the members of Congress who have left office have gone on to become lobbyists, often working for industries (such as pharmaceuticals, petroleum, defense, etc.) that they were previously in charge of regulating. Sometimes of course, the revolving door turns the other way. John Dugan worked as a lobbyist for the American Bankers Association from 1993 to 2005 - pushing bills reducing required regulation on banks. In 2005 he was appointed the

Causes Economic inequality is natural, but atypically high levels in the United States are driven by one overriding factor: the lower and middle classes are being cut out of the democratic process. Moneyed interests are taking over politics on two levels, both deciding the outcomes of elections, and dominating the policy making process.

Money has always been a feature of American politics, and as elections become more expensive - the 2012 election is expected to cost between $6 and $8 billon – the contributions of average Americans become less important. Winning candidates often become beholden to the money that brought them their power and vote against the interests of the American people. A political system approaching a plutocracy has had unsurprising effects. The repeal of the Glass-

head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the organization in charge of regulating federally chartered banks, and proceeded to loosen many national and state regulations on banks, one of the causes of the recession.

As a result of moneyed interests’ influence, throughout the ‘80s, ‘90s, and 2000s, taxes went down for the richest Americans. Capital gains taxes (taxes on profits from investments) decreased from 35% in 1976 to 15% in 2012, while the income tax rates on the richest Americans fell from 70% in 1976 to 35% in 2010. Crucially, this tax reduction was not accompanied by equivalent tax reductions for most American citizens, in fact, the CBO emphasizes that between 1979 and 2007, “Government Transfers and Federal Taxes Became

A Nation Divided

Less Redistributive”. Due to tax cuts, once adjusted for inflation government revenue has declined from approximately $2.5 trillion in 2000 to $2 trillion in 2010, the most recent year for which we have accurate revenue – this is despite a rise in GDP. As government revenue has shrunk, it has created a system that demands the greatest sacrifices from those least capable of providing them. Supported by billionaires, the GOP has consistently demanded cuts to education, Medicare, and Social Security – programs that primarily benefit the lower and middle classes, but labeled an equal sacrifice on the part of the wealthy, a moderate tax increase, class warfare.

Effects Cuts to welfare, infrastructure, and education do not only drive inequality up, they also reduce equity – equality of opportunity – within the United States. Children born into poverty may never have identical opportunities to those lucky enough to live in wealthy families, but well kept public schools and a family kept solvent by Medicaid (roughly 20% of domestic bankruptcies are caused by healthcare costs) can help close that gap.

Tragic though it may be, the government’s lack of investment in equity makes sense. Due to money’s outsize influence in politics government works mainly for those who are already rich, and ignores those with the potential to achieve great things – after all, the future can’t make million dollar campaign donations.

Independent of its effect on equity, however, inequality has huge negative economic effects. Recessions occur when either demand

Huge inequalities within the United States are not an unavoidable symptom of capitalism at work, but are actually harming us economically, and killing the American dream. or supply dip below necessary levels. While a number of factors can spark a recession, what takes a recession from a blip to a long term economic reality is systemically low levels of supply or demand. A good example of a supply deficient recession is the stagflation of the 70s. Oil shocks in 1973 and 1979 made production more costly and drove down supply, creating a stagnating economy which could not meet high demand. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve responded with policies that had helped fix past demand deficient recessions lowering interest rates. This both unnecessarily increased demand, which had no supply to buy from, and increased inflation. Crucially, when the oil shocks ended and the government ended its monetary response, the economy returned to growth throughout the 80s.

Gini Coefficient A nation’s Gini coefficient is a measure of its income inequality made both before and after tax in which 0 represents perfect equality and 1 represents perfect inequality - the vast majority of countries have gini coefficients between .25 and .55.

The Great Depression and our recent recession on the other hand, were demand deficient recessions that reflected a fundamental problem in the US economy – huge economic disparities. Both of the above crises occurred as the U.S Gini coefficient hit record highs, and it makes sense. Compared to most Americans, millionaires and billionaires tend to use a smaller percentage of their money on consumption and a higher percentage on investment. Consumption leads, of course, to demand, and investment leads directly to increased supply, by allowing companies to acquire more capital, and research new technology. Essentially, when the ultra-rich control a greater percentage of money, demand goes down, and supply rises.

This is not necessarily a negative, some inequality is necessary, both to provide the incentives that allow the free market – the most efficient method of distributing goods – to function, and to create an upper class that invests in the capital and technology that keeps supply high. Unfortunately, however, when inequality rises too high it drives demand down and threatens to choke our economy.

Although it is difficult to determine the optimal amount of inequality in an economic system, what is clear is that the current level is deeply harmful. In theory the policy solutions necessary to reverse the current trend towards increasing inequality are fairly simple, to a large extent it simply entails reversing the tax reductions and reduced regulations of the past 30 years. But more crucially, it requires acknowledging that the huge inequalities within the United States are not an unavoidable symptom of capitalism at work, but are actually harming us economically, and killing the American dream.

Nahuel Fefer is a Sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences.

He can be reached at nahuelfefer@wustl.edu.

21

22

International

By The Numbers 25,000

112,000

estimated killed in the Syrian conflict, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

Syrian refugees have fled the country for Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey

VOTER REGISTRATION DAY

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18 6 LOCATIONS! FLTC – School of Medicine: 10am­3pm Crowder Courtyard – School of Law: 11am­3pm Goldfarb Commons, Brown School: 11am­4pm

Bear’s Den: 5pm­9pm (These stations will have out­of­state registration as well) Lopata Multipurpose Room: 5pm­9pm Danforth University Center Commons: 11am­3pm Please bring a Washington University ID OR driver’s license.

The last day to register for the November 6 election in Missouri is October 10, 2012.

Check out www.gephardtinstitute.wustl.edu for voting information and other activities including Issues and Ideas: Election 2012 weekly panel discussions.

international 23

Jailhouse Rock Gabe Rubin

C

hecks and balances, among their other effects, put a disappointing damper on political intrigue. Authoritarian regimes, from Russia’s kleptocratic feudalism to China’s single-party totalitarianism, all try (with varying degrees of success) to protect their power by striking down those most capable of threatening them. The recent and ongoing purge of Bo Xilai from the rarefied ranks of the Chinese Communist Party have borne significant resemblance to the plight of Russia’s Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a modern day Icarus who ignored all warnings not to fly too close to the Kremlin sun. But unlike Khodorkovsky, Bo has little chance of becoming an international cause célèbre, a fact that has as much to do with Western attitudes as with the differences between the flavors of Russian and Chinese styles of repression.

The recent and ongoing purge of Bo Xilai from the rarefied ranks of the Chinese Communist Party have borne significant resemblance to the plight of Russia’s Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Khodorkovsky hit the jackpot when the Soviet Union crumbled. Already a successful businessman in the days of perestroika, he became a billionaire when he took control of the Russian energy company, Yukos, formerly controlled by the Soviet state. In the early years of the first Vladimir Putin administration, Khodorkovsky became increasingly vocal about governmental corruption and publicly aligned himself with liberal and left-leaning groups and political parties. Putin, hoping to stall the ambitions of a worthy adversary, moved to expunge Khodorkovsky from the political landscape: in 2005, Khodorkovsky was convicted of tax evasion and other financial crimes carrying with them a lengthy prison sentence. He remains in prison today.

Like any enterprising inmate with powerful allies, Khodorkovsky has used his prison time assiduously, transforming his profile from that of ambitious oligarch to human rights martyr. The best of the West have advocated on his behalf, from George W. Bush to Amnesty International with plenty in between. In a hearing this summer of the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, members repeatedly referenced Khodorkovsky’s case as a reason to be vigilant in enforcing Russia’s commitments arising from its new World Trade Organization membership. Khodorkovsky has managed to become Russian Victim De Jour among the Western hoi polloi, a status Putin doubtfully intended to bestow upon him back in 2005 when he locked him up.

That transformation will likely remain elusive for Bo Xilai. As of now, the former Communist Party chief of Chongqing province re-

mains in detention following his dismissal from the Party for crimes of corruption and an unspecified connection to the murder case of British businessman, Neil Heywood. Heywood was found dead in his Chongqing hotel room in March, sparking a months-long political scandal that has rocked a Chinese establishment always wary of bad publicity. A trial that concluded in August found Gu Kailai, Bo’s wife, guilty of murdering Heywood over a business disagreement.

In many ways, the Heywood case provided the Party establishment a perfect opportunity to get rid of a powerful, iconoclastic rising star. Bo had sought an appointment to the politburo’s Standing Committee, the elite group of nine individuals who make Chinese policy more or less by consensus. However, rather than seek his appointment via traditional backroom alliances, Bo took on the mantle of the charismatic populist. Colossal infrastructure projects sprang up in Chongqing, and Bo revived the cult of Mao-worship with “Red Sing-alongs” and other patriotic events reminiscent of a bygone era in China’s development. Bo gambled that popular support, while not an official criterion for career advancement, couldn’t hurt. But he realized how few friends he had when the leadership turned against him following the murder. His career now destroyed, Bo will likely face charges of corruption and abuse of his position later this year, that is, sometime after the tightly orchestrated October political transition when China will get a new president and prime minister.

Bo has little chance of garnering the type of support Khodorkovsky has for a variety of reasons. First, it would nearly be impossible for Bo to write critical articles (or any articles) from prison, as Khodorkovsky has occasionally been able to do. Second, Bo lacks an obvious constituency in the West. Khodorkovsky has been able to win the hearts of liberals by advocating for a more responsive and open Russian state, and conservatives by advocating protections of personal freedoms and a business-friendly climate. Bo won’t make

Unlike Khodorkovsky, Bo has little chance of becoming an international cause célèbre. many friends with his reverence for Mao and militant Chinese nationalism. The West’s love affair with enemies of the Chinese state has, so far, extended mainly to artists (such as architect Ai Weiwei) and activists (blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng, Nobel Laureate Liu Xiabo).

And yet, if it seems preposterous that Bo would gain Western support, then why has Khodorkovsky had so much success? Prior to going to prison, he was nothing more than a billionaire lusting for political power, no more honorable than the president who locked him up. And therein lies the hope for Bo: if he can just manage to smuggle out a few prison letters pining for a new, freer China, he just might find himself with some new fawning admirers in the Occident.

Who says you don’t make friends in prison?

Gabe Rubin is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at grubin@wustl.edu.

24 international

Palestinian Right of Return Taka Yamaguchi | Illustration by Michelle Nahmad

I

lived in the West Bank and Jordan for most of this past summer. I participated in non-violent activism in Palestine and worked with (read: played with) children on a digital media program in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan. I was tear-gassed in the former and ate popsicles with kids in the latter. In three short months, I got a hands-on crash course on the Palestinian condition.

Wherever I went, there was one ubiquitous and unavoidable issue: the right of return.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDR) states that civilians maintain the right to return to the homes from which they fled in wartime, and that no one may prevent them from doing so.

Enacting the Palestinian right of return would allow Palestinian refugees who were forced off of their ancestral lands, homes, and property due to the establishment of the Israel in 1948—an event known to Palestinians as the Nakba, or catastrophe—to return to the entirety of historic Palestine: the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and what is today considered Israel proper.

The right of return is the most hotly contested obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state, with seemingly little room for moderation; it is judged by the Israeli political spectrum to be an unreasonable demand and by Palestinian society at large as a necessary condition.

I spent two eye-opening weeks in the Palestinian farming town of Beit Ummar, 20 miles from Bethlehem. At first glace, it seemed like a quaint village far from the harsh realities of life under occupation. Yet Beit Ummar is as a center of non-violent Palestinian resistance and, as a result, reminders of the Nakba, and its proposed “reversal,” the right of return, are a part of daily life.

A half-mile down the road from the town center is Al Arroub refugee camp, where 10,000 Palestinians and their descendants have lived since 1948. Walls in Beit Ummar are marked with graffiti symbolizing the right of return. The house key is a particularly powerful and popular image, representing the keys which fleeing Palestinians took as a memento of the homes to which they hoped to return some day. Many homes in the town had such a key displayed proudly in their living rooms as a symbol of support.

As a result of wartime exoduses in 1948 and 1967, there are an estimated four million Palestinian refugees and their descendants living throughout the Middle East today. Roughly one-third live in refugee camps, which are better described as urban slums.

Jordan welcomed an enormous number of Palestinian refugees in the wake of the Nakba. Inundated with Palestinians, Jordanian demography changed overnight. Today, the majority of Jordanian citizens are Palestinian. In the capital, Amman, an estimated 75% of the population is Palestinian-Jordanian. I lived in Amman for two months, and one of my favorite neighborhoods to stroll around in was called Jabal al Hussein. Its streets are named after historical Palestinian towns, many of which are within Israel today: Yaffa St., Lod St., Haifa St. My favorite juice stand downtown was called Palestine Juice. My favorite falafel stand was called Jerusalem Falafel.

You get the idea.

I ran a photography and filmography program for four weeks in the dusty Talbieh Palestinian refugee camp south of Amman. I immediately noticed efforts made to maintain a uniquely Palestinian identity. Kids were reading books about Palestinian culture, even as they had never set foot in their homeland. A teenage girl, who wanted to study film in the United States, proudly showed me her short films interviewing community elders about their former lives in Palestine.

When I asked the kids where they were from, they did not hesitate to name their grandparents’ Palestinian towns.

Yet this effort to preserve the living memory of their homeland is not the result of a misty-eyed nostalgia by the elderly. I witnessed how the older generations made a conscious effort to keep the flame alive in the new generation in the hope that one day the young will return. You might have been born in Jordan, they seemed to tell their kids, but you belong in Palestine. In other words, the clearheaded, overwhelming sentiment is that this refugee phase of the community is temporary.

One day, I was chatting with Nabil, a middle-aged PalestinianJordanian carpenter in a working-class suburb of Amman. He was not well-off, but lived comfortably enough with his own home and car. I asked him what he would do if a Palestinian state were established, with a right of return. No hesitation on his part: he would go.

international 25

Leaving behind his house, his work, and his Jordanian friends, he said, was a piffling loss if it meant returning to his homeland.

Pushing forward with the theoretical scenario, I noted that he would be giving up a stable and well-supported life in Jordan. I predicted that life in a new Palestinian state would be very hard, the political situation unstable; old rivalries would re-emerge. No matter, he said. There will be problems, but between Palestinian and Palestinian—between brothers. You wouldn’t understand, he simply stated, and stopped talking.

In most ways Jordanian society and Palestinian society are almost inseparable and Palestinian-Jordanians enjoy the same benefits as so-called Jordanian-Jordanians. Yet the preservation of a distinctly Palestinian memory and identity is something of a national aspiration among Palestinian-Jordanians. They may have a Jordanian passport and speak with a Jordanian accent, but their hearts are in Palestine.

The Palestinian vision for the right of return consists of far more than simply returning to a physical location. Al ‘ouda, as it is called, takes on a mystical quality in encompassing more than just the right

would sacrifice everything to return to Palestine, there are many others who have vested political, social, and economic interests in staying in their adopted homelands. My Palestinian roommate’s family lived in Ramallah, but she lives in Amman because there are better economic opportunities in Jordan. Considerably fewer than four million refugees would return to historic Palestine, and Israeli Jews would retain a sizeable majority in Israel.

More importantly, the relative increase of the Arab population in Israel with respect to the Jewish is already a demographic inevitability. Arab citizens of Israel comprise more than 20% of the population; their population growth rate is significantly higher than that of Jews. Estimates vary, but it is likely that there will no longer be a Jewish majority in Israel within 50 years. At this point, Israel will have to decide if it is a Jewish state or a democratic state. The right of return would simply nudge this fateful crossroads closer to realization.

Another Israeli fear is that returning Palestinian refugees would be poor and put pressure on Israel’s resources. Even if a refugee’s ancestral land is within Israel itself, the economic and social pressures of uprooting his or her life and starting anew in Israel means that

Us Palestinians in Palestine, we’re not fighting for ourselves. We fight for our brothers and sisters abroad, the Diaspora. We’re fighting their fight, so they can return to our homeland.

- Palestinian activist on nonviolent resistance Beit Ummar, West Bank. of return itself, but a manifestation of “what once was” in their ancestors’ Palestine and “what could be” in a future Palestinian state. The importance of al ‘ouda in the Palestinian consciousness cannot be overstated. In some ways, the essence of being Palestinian today is the right of return itself: what we lost, and what we fight to regain.

As Israel maintains the upper hand in negotiations, some members of the ruling Palestinian Authority have indicated their willingness to concede the right of return entirely in exchange for a workable two-state solution. These negotiators treat the right of return as if it is simply a political consideration to be traded away.

Yet international agreements such as the UDHR and the deep emotional connection Palestinian refugees have with the issue make clear that the right of return is a personal right, an individual human right. No legitimate government can forfeit the inalienable rights of its citizens on their behalf, especially an issue as fundamental to the Palestinian people as the right of return.

The Palestinian Authority risks destroying its legitimacy, already crumbling due to rampant corruption and a perceived lack of action against continued occupation.

No lasting two-state solution, with an Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state, is feasible without a full right of return.

Many Israelis are against the right of return because they charge that such an influx of Palestinian Muslims and Christians would irreversibly alter the fundamental character of Israel as a Jewish state. Yet, like political rhetoric anywhere, this assertion plays upon peoples’ fears while downplaying the less bleak, more probable outcomes.

There are four million Palestinian refugees and about six million Israeli Jews. Although there are many refugees, like Nabil, who

poor Palestinians are more likely to settle in the West Bank or Gaza— which would form the future Palestinian state. There, much-needed economic and social support is already in place.

Palestinian returners to Israel are likely to be those with roots in historically Palestinian cities—with existing Arab minorities. Urban Palestinian families traditionally were and continue to be middle and upper class. Such an emigration of well-off potential consumers would be a boon for the Israeli economy.

The right of return would not be the “destruction of Israel” that fear-mongering Israeli politicians proclaim, but the replacement of the current restrictive and discriminatory Israeli immigration policy with one akin to an “open border”. Palestinians have been denied their rights and their dignity for 64 years. The right of return would be an Israeli acceptance of the Palestinian people’s legitimate national aspirations.

As I outlined earlier, I believe that al ‘ouda, the return, is not negotiable because it is more than a political issue. It is the politicization of a powerful collective sentiment of the Palestinian people.

It is the outward manifestation of the expression, Falasteen fi qalbna: Palestine in our hearts. And without it, even the establishment of a thriving Palestinian state would never be quite the success its people deserve.

Taka Yamaguchi is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at tyamaguchi@wustl.edu.

26 international

Libya: Building a New Nation Alex Tolkin

L

ast February, Libya joined many other nations in the Arab world by overthrowing a dictator that had repressed their country for decades. Muammar Gaddafi, the “mad dog of the middle east” was toppled after several months of struggle, with the help of extensive NATO air support. In the past year, Libya has been through a whirlwind transformation, making it an interesting study of modern nation building. On August 9, Libya’s current transitional government elected its new president, Mohammed Magarief. Magarief, who struggled for decades in exile to overthrow Gaddafi, now faces an arguably harder task: creating a democracy from scratch.

One of the unique aspects of the Libyan situation is the almost total lack of existing institutions on which to build a democracy.

Gaddafi worked systematically to eliminate almost all potential opposition to his rule. This was partly his undoing, as the crippled Libyan military had to rely on foreign mercenaries due to a lack of competent personnel. Civil society and the private sector were greatly restricted under Gaddafi. This means that Libyans are currently attempting to build a democracy in a nation with almost no democratic foundations.

In a way, this is a blessing. Libya is starting from scratch, and is tearing apart all aspects of the Gaddafi regime. Planners have a tabula rasa to figure out the optimal democratic system. Gaddafi’s repression has also served to unite Libyans. Libyans have joined together to tear down the remnants of the old Gaddafi regime, from license plates to school textbooks. At times this fervor to wipe away Gaddafi has appeared almost dangerous – a law outlawing praising the former regime was eventually repealed on free speech grounds, but indicated the level of hatred towards Gaddafi.

Libya’s transition to democracy is very much a work in progress.

The successes and failures of the transition provide useful lessons for future nation building exercises. Most of the transitional process has been handled by the National Transitional Council (NTC), a loose coalition of various leaders of the revolution. The NTC created a roadmap with specific checkpoints on the path to democracy.

While the NTC has run late on some of its deadlines, the roadmap is still being followed, and sets clear, measurable objectives. This has also increased the legitimacy of the NTC. Instead of being a miscellaneous group of strongmen, the NTC defined itself as a temporary body with an exact expiration date.

The National Transitional Council yields to an elected 200 member ‘General National Congress’ (GNC). The new GNC has more legitimacy than the NTC because it is an elected body; however, it is unclear how much power it actually possesses. With no constitution, it is not clear what processes the GNC will use to actually effect change. The NTC struggled to implement major policies because of a lack of defined legislative procedures. Once a constitution is ratified the new parliament should have more power, but Libya cannot afford a year of dallying. The country is still largely run by the remnants of the Gaddafi bureaucracy and risks slipping back into old ways.

Therefore, replacing Gaddafi institutions needs to happen now in this current climate of change.

For the United States, Libya is a vindication of President Obama’s much-maligned strategy of “leading from behind”. The US waited for multilateral support before assisting the NATO campaign to bomb Gaddafi forces. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States bore the brunt of the military campaign and got stuck occupying the countries. Conversely, the United States contributed zero foot soldiers in Libya. Therefore Libyans have a strong sentiment that they are responsible for their own future, with strong acclamation for US assistance. The United States enjoys higher approval ratings in Libya than anywhere else in the Arab world.

The major lesson of this hands-off approach is that more caution is needed with post-conflict management. After the war, Gaddafi’s defeated mercenaries left the country en masse. While Niger successfully managed the influx of soldiers and weapons, the young democracy of Mali did not, and the brutal violence there has made the nation a potential recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. While Libya is an example of a cheap, successful military intervention, the US should learn from this experience and remain constantly engaged in the region, even after the fighting appears to be over. This strategy can prevent similar types of damaging aftershocks.

Libya’s transition to democracy is very much a work in progress.

The successes and failures of the transition provide useful lessons for future nation building exercises.

Going forward, Libya faces two major challenges. The short term challenge is recovering from the revolution, specifically in disarming the militias. Much of the fighting during the revolution was conducted by a variety of semiautonomous military groups who have been loath to abandon their weapons and power. While Libyans generally want the militias to throw down their arms, Libya is awash with weapons, and plenty of households have piles of Kalashnikovs sitting in their kitchens. More dangerous weapons are not secured properly, with the potential for weapons proliferation or accidental detonation.

In the long term, resource management is a major issue. . Libya’s economy depends on oil. With a population of only about six million people, Libya is sparsely populated but has the largest oil reserves in Africa. This oil is generally located in the barren south, which is almost totally devoid of people. Equitably distributing the oil wealth to a diverse population of different sects will be a major challenge.

Already the residents of Benghazi in the east worry that they will be abused by the government of Tripoli in the west. The constitutional debates will center around oil; how its profits will be distributed and the creation of potential geopolitical divide in wealth.

international 27

These difficulties aside, there are several reasons to be optimistic about Libya. Even under Gaddafi’s corrupt regime, oil profits allowed Libyans to enjoy the highest per capita income in Africa Restoring oil production was the top priority of the NTC and to the surprise of many analysts, it has almost completely returned to prewar levels. Libyan reconstruction is expected to be extremely rapid; The Economist projects it will be 2012’s fastest growing economy.

Gaddafi, despite his despotic rule, launched several projects that will prove useful in the future. His education curriculum required Libyans to read his “Green Book” to indoctrinate them in his “Jamahiriya” ideology. While the book was widely considered ridiculous, the program raised literacy in Libya to among the highest in Africa.

Gaddafi’s gargantuan Great Manmade River project, the largest irrigation system in the world, should provide the desert nation a stable water supply, solving a problem even wealthy nations in the region like Israel are struggling to remedy. Libya offers fantastic tourist opportunities, with the best Ancient Roman ruins in Africa and miles of sandy Mediterranean beaches. Various Libyan cities are trying to position themselves as trade hubs for Mediterranean shipping to take advantage of Libya’s central location between Africa, Europe, and the

Middle East. If Libya can successfully use its oil money to rebuild the nation and promote security, the nation could become similar to the United Arab Emirates in terms of wealth and global influence.

Of course, that is a massive “if ”. And even the most optimistic observers acknowledge that building a private sector, government, and diverse economy could take a generation. Still, in two years Libya has gone from the reign of a dictator entrenched for decades to the rule of their first democratically elected body. As far as revolutions are concerned, Libya’s path has been remarkably smooth.

Alex Tolkin is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at atolkin@wustl.edu.

28 international

The Malian Coup D’etat Molly McGregor | Photos by Molly McGregor

O

n March 21st, I spent the day working with a midwife at a rural health clinic in a tiny Malian village. I was studying abroad with a program focused on public health and development and had been for three months. That evening, a fellow American student stationed at a clinic in the capital Bamako called me to say there had been a coup d’état. Angry over the government’s management of the ongoing separatist rebellion in the north, lowerlevel soldiers, led by Captain Amadou Hoya Sanogo, had taken control of the government, suspended the constitution, and closed all airports and borders. President Amadou Toumani Touré (or ATT), in his second and final term, fled into hiding. Thus began Mali’s tragic degeneration from one of the most politically stable countries in Africa into the world’s fastest failing state. At the time, presidential elections were a mere three weeks away.

Following the coup, Sanogo and his posse of mutinous officers set up the National Committee for the Restoration of the Malian State (CNRDR) to rule the country. Its express purpose was to reestablish control over the northern areas lost to rebels.

The rebellion supposedly at the heart of the coup d’état had begun as another in a series of Tuareg rebellions. The Tuareg are a traditionally nomadic and tribal ethnic group native to the desert region spread over northern Mali, Niger, Algeria, and Libya. Victims of arbitrary colonial borders, they have repeatedly attempted to establish their own nation-state for the past century. This most recent rebellion was sparked by civil war in Libya, a longtime haven of Tuareg groups under Gaddafi. Gaddafi’s fall prompted the return to northern Mali of Tuareg factions who had not taken part in the most recent disarmament and peace agreements. Many had served in Gaddafi’s forces and returned with powerful artillery that gave new potency to the aspirations of groups such as the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA).

Unsurprisingly, members of the international community, including the United States, immediately condemned the coup

d’état and cut off all foreign aid. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), of which Mali is a member, quickly closed its borders with Mali. ECOWAS threatened severe sanctions without a return to civilian rule, a dangerous prospect for a poor landlocked country that imports significant amounts of food and fuel.

Ultimately, the coup d’état proved to be the most counterproductive anti-rebellion measure. The rebels capitalized on post-coup governmental confusion and a massive withdrawal of already underequipped Malian military personnel towards Bamako. Rebels launched an offensive, forcing the retreat of the remaining Malian army. In the two weeks following the coup prior to my evacuation, I watched as the news reported progressively more territory lost to rebels. On the day I arrived home, Tuareg rebels declared the Independent State of Azawad. Its borders include 60% of Mali’s overall territory, an area the size of Texas.

Most worryingly, a medley of Islamist terrorist groups operating out of the ungovernable desert in recent years has coopted the rebellion. These groups notably include Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Ansar Dine, both of which engage in drug and weapons smuggling and have also claimed responsibility for past kidnappings and killings of Westerners in the far north. Originally complementing Tuareg military successes, these groups have edged out Tuareg secular rule in many areas of the North and set up Islamist mini-states. Hundreds of thousands have already fled the harsh application of sharia law in northern Mali, including public beatings and the amputation of a suspected thief ’s hand. Refugees indicate that these areas under Islamist control have attracted like-minded jihadists from around the world. As such, northern Mali has recently been labeled an “African Afghanistan.”

A former French colony, Mali is a Muslim majority country and the largest state in West Africa. Landlocked, its northern half includes the heart of the Sahara Desert, and it is largely uninhabitable but for small towns and the fabled city of Timbuktu. Most of Mali’s 14.5 million inhabitants live in the southern Sahel region. One million alone live in the capital of Bamako, which is the fastest growing city on the continent and where I spent the majority of my time. Despite a rich history of prosperous empires, today

international 29

The two weeks I spent in Mali after the coup were indeed surreal— certainly not the period of history I had been expecting to witness.

Mali is one of the poorest countries on earth, and most Malians eke out their living as subsistence farmers. In 2011, Mali stood 175th on the development index out of 185 countries (ranking below even Afghanistan).

In spite of this unbelievable poverty, Mali impressively managed to establish democracy back in 1992. Long before the Arab Spring, a mass movement for democracy initiated by students challenged the regime of then dictator Moussa Traoré. Thousands of Malians in increasing numbers marched nonviolently for democratic reforms even as the regime met the protesters with violence. ATT, then a colonel, arrested Traoré and made preparations for the elections of 1992, in which Alpha Oumar Konaté became Mali’s first democratically-elected leader. He ultimately served two five-year terms before ATT was elected in 2002. Though corruption was an issue, Mali remained a model in the region.

A year ago, I had begged my parents to let me study abroad in Mali. My family joked that I only wanted to go to Mali because we share the same name. What else could possibly make me want to spend my semester abroad in an impoverished developing country where tropical diseases such as malaria are very real risks—not to mention the on-again, off-again (but recently on-again) rebellion in the north? The truth was, the program had everything I was looking for in a study abroad. Immerse myself while living with a host family? Check. Conduct my own field research? Check. Witness a bit of history as a key African democratic hopeful was set to hold its presidential elections in April?

For me, check plus. Or so I’d thought.

Most tragically, recent developments in Mali are completely countercultural. Overall, Mali has an amazingly tolerant and peaceful society that is never mentioned in news reports. Malians are loath to the idea of the break up of their country because they take immense pride in their identity and culture that cuts across ethnic and religious lines. Despite a 90% Muslim population, Christian and animist minorities integrate easily. My own Muslim host family lamented that my evacuation prevented my joining them for their Catholic friends’ much anticipated annual Easter party. Mali’s brand of Islam is neither militant nor fundamental, but more easygoing as it has absorbed local and Sufi traditions. Islamists reject these as heretical and have begun to wage war against these deeply rooted cultural institutions. Shocking the population, AQIM jihadists in Timbuktu have destroyed numerous ancient mosques and tombs, including several world heritage sites, with the sole purpose of dispelling “un-Islamic” local and Sufi myths about these shrines.

The two weeks I spent in Mali after the coup were indeed surreal—certainly not the period of history I had been expecting to witness. Returning to Bamako, my daily life there seemed eerily unchanged with the exception of a military-imposed curfew.

I struggled to make sense of all that was happening as it became hard to distinguish uneducated rumors from rumormongers and

military propaganda from the truth in the absence of reliable local news media. I heard every opinion imaginable on both the good or ill of the coup, rebels, ATT, and even a rap song praising Captain Sanogo. Falling terribly ill while having to make evacuation preparations knowing that sanctions could choke Mali of its supply of jet fuel was not the most pleasant experience.

Since I left Mali, the situation has only worsened. After a brief period of ECOWAS sanctions (but continued blockages of foreign aid), an interim civilian government formed. Yet a terrible humanitarian crisis looms in the north as security and human rights, especially those of women, deteriorate. Both ECOWAS and the Pentagon have considered military intervention options. However, the severe beating of the interim president by a mob in May, a violent countercoup attempt in July, the expansion of terrorist control, and continued CNRDR involvement in politics all hinder progress towards national elections and prospects for successful interventions. Mali will take untold years to recover from the coup d’état, and it will never again be the political paragon it once was.

In spite of everything, I am incredibly grateful for my time in Mali. It was the most profound experience of my life. I fell in love with this amazing country and people that welcomed me as one of their own. Bearing witness to the coup serves as a constant reminder to never take the privilege and genuine democracy we have in the U.S. for granted. What was only a tumultuous semester abroad for me remains the everyday reality for far too much of the rest of the world.

Molly McGregor is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.

She can be reached at mgmcgreg@wustl.edu.

30