Growth by Washington University Political Review

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

POLITICAL

REVIEW

31.1 | Summer 2019 | wupr.org

Table of Contents 6

Controversial Solutions to the Opiod Epidemic Salil Uttarwar

Sea of Green: Rethinking Food Eco-Labels Kalen Davison

Can Economic Growth be Sustainable? Caroline Foshee

I love women's soccer, but not the USWNT. Sienna Ruiz

My Experiences as an AfricanAmerican are Inescapable Jordan Coley

Theme Art Natalia Oledzka

Growth

National

International

Theme Art Jinny Park

Theme Art Leslie Liu

The Vegans are Coming! Helen Webley-Brown

"I am Bully-Proof" Rohan Palacios

Democratic Party Growing Pains Hanna Khalil

College Endowments: A Colonial Empire Ishaan Shah

Theme Art Reshad Hamad

Agtech for the Ag Coast Zachary Sorensen

Terms and Conditions Will Apply Christian Monzรณn

A Costly, Not So Free Market Caroline Foshee

Extreme Nationalism on the Rise in China Yiran Cheng

Editors' Note Executive Director Ishaan Shah Editors-in-Chief Hanna Khalil Sophie Attie Design Director Catherine Ju Staff Editors Max Lichtenstein Christian Monzon Jon Niewjik Rohan Palacios Features Editors Nick Massenburg Megan Orlanski Assistant Design Directors Leslie Liu Jinny Park Programming Director Liza Sivriver Web Editor Conor Smyth Treasurer Natalia Rodriguez Front Cover Avni Joshi Theme Spread: Jinny Park Feature Designs: Catherine Ju Leslie Liu

Dear Reader, Flexitarian semiotics pinterest, bushwick live-edge post-ironic affogato. Letterpress raw denim cred twee drinking vinegar. Microdosing plaid air plant subway tile, everyday carry fashion axe schlitz keytar hell of poutine messenger bag heirloom. Pork belly meditation cold-pressed, helvetica mustache hot chicken banjo pinterest banh mi man braid wolf beard pop-up tofu. Af actually humblebrag cliche intelligentsia, tote bag shaman. Occupy unicorn shaman cold-pressed sriracha vice fashion axe. Lyft ethical distillery tattooed unicorn dreamcatcher. Affogato cliche gluten-free tilde sustainable. 8-bit humblebrag kogi street art af artisan. Typewriter viral succulents twee wayfarers tbh austin master cleanse tilde williamsburg mlkshk occupy cliche affogato. Fam hell of scenester paleo you probably haven't heard of them jean shorts meh. Everyday carry fanny pack gastropub hammock, tacos farm-to-table church-key. Chicharrones snackwave messenger bag meggings chia post-ironic pitchfork mustache typewriter tacos helvetica. Pop-up lyft hoodie pork belly. Selvage cardigan letterpress typewriter raw denim pabst live-edge hot chicken. Lo-fi food truck pop-up photo booth, gastropub iceland biodiesel DIY +1 XOXO taiyaki cardigan disrupt. Cronut before they sold out you probably haven't heard of them slow-carb direct trade. Tote bag palo santo asymmetrical, mlkshk williamsburg tattooed truffaut master cleanse tacos humblebrag pabst. Man bun brunch succulents messenger bag pork belly. Kickstarter lomo try-hard, tacos keytar ramps pickled copper mug. La croix brunch ugh kogi trust fund farm-to-table pitchfork fingerstache. Mixtape quinoa gastropub mlkshk aesthetic flexitarian franzen man bun butcher etsy. IPhone tote bag fixie flannel direct trade gochujang echo park DIY knausgaard shaman VHS blog cardigan disrupt pok pok. Typewriter coloring book put a bird on it, waistcoat XOXO craft beer celiac la croix health goth lyft brunch direct trade affogato man braid. Dreamcatcher slow-carb deep v vape bitters, chartreuse yuccie tattooed stumptown cray ennui messenger bag gastropub. Iceland helvetica tousled swag. Marfa man bun blog, drinking vinegar normcore godard art party. Air plant hammock flannel tote bag, cliche cloud bread iPhone skateboard echo park seitan truffaut hashtag. Gluten-free microdosing XOXO narwhal. Hot chicken hoodie beard salvia, venmo bushwick microdosing kombucha flannel taxidermy shoreditch austin. With best wishes, Michael Fogarty & Dan Sicorsky Editors-in-Chief

WU Political Review

Controversial Solutions to the Opioid Epidemic Salil Uttarwar

recent study Annals of Internal Medicine reported that nearly 12% of the almost 592,000 patients diagnosed with an ankle sprain in the US received a prescription for an opioid, mainly from their primary and emergency care physicians. This number is especially startling because there have been no evidence-backed claims to support the usage of opioids to treat ankle sprains. James R. Holmes, the study’s primary author, asserted that the wide variety of recommended treatments for ankle sprains, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cryotherapy, does not include opioid usage. This pattern of opioid prescription for ankle sprains is shocking, yet it is just one of the many opioid prescribing practices in the country that deserves reevaluation. Although people in the US and the UK have similar oral health, American dentists prescribe 37 times as many opioids as their overseas colleagues, even when adjusted for population size and number of dentists. The report, published in JAMA Network Open, that includes this statistic also found that American dentists prescribe opioids such as oxycodone, which has a high potential for abuse, while dentists in the UK do not. There are many possible reasons that physicians prescribe opioids at a high rate in the US. The astronomical cost of healthcare in the US may be tied to high prescription rates of opioids. People who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds often wait until their afflictions are severe before consulting a physician, which may result in the need for more intense therapeutics such as opioids. The higher rate of opioid prescription may also be linked to how physician salaries in the US can be tied to patient satisfaction. The various studies that have been done on this topic have produced a wide range of results. An article in the Annals of Family Medicine reported that adults with musculoskeletal conditions are more likely to have higher satisfaction scores when

on opioids. On the other hand, an article published by the American College of Emergency Physicians reported no correlation between patient satisfaction and opioid use in the emergency room. Press Ganey, one of the companies that develop and distribute the patient satisfaction surveys, recently announced that it would remove questions related to the communication of pain from its surveys starting from October 2019 to eliminate this potential concern. Many studies have advocated for the legalization and use of marijuana as an alternative pain management drug to lower opioid-related overdose rates. However, this, like most proposed solutions to the opioid epidemic, is controversial. A study published in 2014 in JAMA Internal Medicine found that medical cannabis laws led to an almost 25% lower yearly rate of overdose from opioids prescribed for pain when compared to states without legalized medical marijuana. A more recent Stanford study contrasts this finding; using data from 2017, after many more states legalized medical marijuana, it found “no evidence of a connection between opioid deaths and the availability of medical cannabis” according to senior author Keith Humphreys. The study even found that the rate of overdose was higher in states that had legalized medicinal marijuana. Another proposed solution to the epidemic was to introduce federal guidelines for the prescription of opioids. When CDC did this in 2016, they recommended that physicians should either avoid increasing opioid dosage over 90 morphine milligram equivalents or “carefully justify” any decision to do so. What they found over the next three years was that though opioid p escriptions did decrease, many clinicians had actually used these guidelines to justify stopping opioid prescriptions overall if they were above the threshold dosage. The authors of the 2016 guidelines recently published an essay to defend their original intentions, stating that “Though some situations, such as the aftermath of an overdose, may necessitate rapid tapers, the

guideline does not support stopping opioid use abruptly.” The authors asserted that the guidelines were voluntary and physicians should be careful as to how they are applied. These competing studies provide just a glimpse of how controversial many potential solutions to the opioid epidemic are; studies looking at physician incentives, medical marijuana use, and the introduction of federal guidelines all produced inconclusive and incomplete results. Instead of attempting to fix the epidemic with these solutions, policymakers should emulate other countries without similar issues. In a recent interview conducted by the Cleveland Clinic regarding opioid issues in Europe, Dr. Van Zurent, an anesthesiologist in Belgium, stated that “healthcare is much more regulated in Europe...Hospitals, general practitioners and pharmacies must follow certain rules and regulations.” Along with this, he discussed how patients have to be referred to a pain center by a general practitioner before they can receive an opioid prescription. The US has a lot to learn from Europe. Although there is no simple solution to the opioid epidemic, mimicking the strict regulations regarding pain management prescriptions could eventually stop the rise of opioid-related death.

Salil Uttarwar ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at suttarwar@wustl.edu.

Growth

Can Economic Growth be Sustainable? Caroline Foshee

roviding us with everything we could imagine, the modern economy has created an unprecedented standard of living. Production has increased substantially over the past few centuries, thanks to the Industrial Revolution, the advent of rapid economic growth. However, there are significant inputs required to maintain current production levels, raising concerns regarding the sustainability of current and future growth. Economics Online defines “sustainable economic growth” as “a rate of growth which can be maintained without creating other significant economic problems, especially for future generations.” But how is growth determined to be sustainable or not? Per its definition, an appropriate measure would be a holistic approach, one that would not only account for production levels, but also the most pertinent economic problems. However, there is currently no such way of identifying growth as “sustainable.” How can we achieve sustainable economic growth if we have no adequate way to measure it? The primary yardstick used to measure economic growth is gross domestic product— GDP— which represents the value of all goods and services produced within a country within a given year. GDP is related to expansions or recessions in the economy, both of which can have serious implications. During an expansion, an economy is overproducing. Though seemingly beneficial, if expansionary growth continued, resources would eventually be exhausted. During a recession, unemployment rises, as does financial hardship, though production inputs are not at risk of exhaustion. In order to prevent these periods of instability, the Federal Reserve determines an annual production goal: potential GDP. When actual GDP equals potential, the economy is producing at the “level of [production] that can be produced when employment is at its maximum sustainable level,” that is, the level where labor and other resources would not be exhausted, according to the St. Louis Fed. However, even when potential and actual GDP are equal, the economy is not free of problems.

If we want to measure the sustainability of economic growth, we must redefine economic growth itself. In the first quarter of 2019, the Fed did not change interest rates, insinuating production at potential GDP. Despite this “sustainability,” millions of Americans still faced financial hardship, which was not reflected in neither potential nor actual GDP. In order to adequately reassess the way we determine the sustainability of economic growth, we must first reassess the definition of economic growth itself. Economic growth is generally regarded as an increase in production and consumption levels within a nation’s given resources. By this definition, GDP serves its purpose. However, an increase in production levels has not historically lead to any sort of sustainability. Over the past 40 years, GDP has increased 257%, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Though this growth has made our country richer overall, the wealth it has produced has not been equally distributed, as increased profits are accrued by stockholders and executives rather than lower-level employees. Though this unequal distribution is the nature of capitalism, it has incited a host of socioeconomic problems, including unequal access to healthcare, financial services, and education. According to a 2018 Federal Reserve report, 25% of Americans cannot afford necessary medical care, 25% lack retirement savings, and 30% have an inconsistent monthly income. Based on historical trends, these numbers are likely to worsen. How can we achieve

sustainable economic growth if our capitalist economy will only intensify these problems? Examining other definitions of sustainable highlights other limitations of our current growth trends. “Sustainable” is also defined by Merriam-Webster as “… using a resource so that the resource is not depleted.” The use of coal, oil, and natural gas has long powered our nation’s economy. Though we have shifted toward some use of renewable energy, our reliance on these resources has not ceased. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at the end of 2019, the mining industry grew 38% and was among the largest contributors to overall growth. This type of growth cannot continue indefinitely. Not only does resource depletion threaten the environment, but also the health and wellbeing of both present and future generations. Thus by two definitions of sustainability, the very nature of economic growth is anything but sustainable. If we want to achieve sustainable growth, we must first redefine economic growth itself. Rather than just an increase in production, growth could be measured in terms of improvements made to significant problems facing the economy. We would not have to eliminate the yardstick of GDP, but we could supplement it by accounting for growth such as renewable energy use and improved welfare programs. Thus, the real question is not “How can we achieve sustainable economic growth?,” but rather, “How can we make our economy more sustainable?” If we shift our thinking, we won’t have to aim for sustainable economic growth, because all growth will be sustainable, creating a world where not just the rich reap the benefits of our expanding economy.

Caroline Foshee ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at caroline.foshee@wustl.edu.

WU Political Review

My Experiences as an African-American are Inescapable Jordan Coley

his summer, I had the opportunity to spend a month studying abroad in London. While there, the program I was with took us to Stratford-upon-Avon for three days to see Shakespearean plays. Throughout my time in London, my Black friends and I often got stares while we walked down the streets, and in the small town of Stratford-upon-Avon this behavior was amplified even more. I tried not to let it faze me, but it is hard to keep your cool when your simple existence is seen as a spectacle. My Blackness frequently feels under attack in America and an ocean away, I experienced similar feelings of discomfort. There was no hard R launched at me or any other overtly racist acts, but I still constantly felt as if I was being scrutinized. All of these feelings reached a boiling point on a Thursday afternoon while I walked to the theatre to see a production of As You Like It. It was a sunny, beautiful day; my friends and I spent the day exploring the town, taking the time to stop and look at flowers and streams, and I was excited to see the play. We were a block away from the theatre, and suddenly someone sprayed some strange liquid at us out of his car. An anger more intense than I had ever felt welled up inside of me, and I yelled at the car with more furor than I thought possible. Quite simply, I was enraged. The group walking with me consisted of me and three of my friends; three of us Black, and one Latinx. Immediately, I thought this incident happened because of our races. I had rarely seen any Black people in Stratford-upon-Avon, I had been stared at, and now I was being attacked for the apparent crime of being Black and alive. I fell in love with theatre because of its capacity to transport me to other worlds and here I was on the way to a theatre, harshly reminded of the injustices of the world I live in. The car went on to spray the white couple walking further along the street which proved that it was not, in fact, a race crime, but this is not

James Baldwin once said that “to be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time,” and maybe this rage follows you around the world; no matter where you are, you constantly receive reminders of the hardship and discrimination that comes with being Black in America.

the point. The point of this story is that in that moment, I immediately felt that I was being targeted because of my race. It is a horrible experience to have something happen to you and to instantly think that you are being persecuted simply because of the color of your skin. The point of this story is that it was not just this incident, this town, or this country that made my Blackness feel under threat. The experience in Stratford was infuriating, but it also reminded me of the many instances during my life in the United States where I felt that my safety was threatened because of my race. It reminded me of the time last semester when my friend got ESTed and when the police showed up, I began to have a panic attack because I was worried that it was going to be my last night alive. It reminded me of the time I cried while watching When They See Us, because any of those boys could have easily been my little brother. It reminded me of numerous other instances where I felt unsafe as a Black woman in America, and perhaps this is why I was so outraged at the situation. In what was possibly a mischievous joke, I was forced to spend my time in another continent trying to cope with the many small traumas that came along with my Black existence in America. I knew that if I was white, I would not have had such a visceral reaction or had so many wounds reopened. I had such a heightened reaction to this situation exclusively because I am AfricanAmerican. James Baldwin once said that “to be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time,” and maybe this rage follows you around the world; no matter where you are, you constantly receive reminders of the hardship and discrimination that comes with being Black in America. You are always reminded that the melanin you deem so beautiful is also the reason for so many offenses that you never truly recover from. Jordan Coley ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at jordancoley@wustl.edu.

Growth

Artwork by Jinny Park, Assistant Design Director

the

V EGA N S are coming Helen Webley-Brown Artwork by Catherine Ju, Design Director

he Economist boldly declared that 2019 would be the year that veganism goes mainstream. In America alone, the sale of vegan foods rose ten times higher than those of general foods. In over 190 countries, 250,000 people made Veganuary pledges to switch to a plant-based diet. The Chinese government has voiced aims to reduce meat consumption by 50% by 2030. It seems as if every restaurant and fast food chain is hopping on the veganfriendly bandwagon. Veganism has truly grown into a political force to be reckoned with, no longer disparaged as simply a fashionable diet fad. While the word “vegan” was not coined until 1944, the lifestyle was practiced long beforehand. Donald Watson, co-founder of the Vegan Society, defined veganism as "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.” Today, interest in the philosophy and way of life is exploding. According to Open Democracy, a global affairs media platform, Google searches for the English term “vegan” have surpassed queries for “vegetarian” since 2011. But, cynics would say that veganism has always been somewhat visible. Indeed, the saying goes: “how do you know if someone is vegan? Don’t worry – they’ll tell you.” However, word-of-the-mouth has significantly changed both the perception and visibility of the movement. For example Veganuary and Meatless Mondays push for short term commitments in the elimination of dairy and/or meat consumption. The campaigns

VEGANISM HAS TRULY GROWN INTO A POLITICAL FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH, NO LONGER DISPAR AGED AS SIMPLY A FASHIONABLE DIET FAD. bolster awareness and make a long-term diet transition seem more manageable and realistic. People become vegan for many reasons. For some, it seems like the next logical step after vegetarianism - perhaps they tried a short-term diet switch and have simply decided to keep going . For others, they’ve seen one to many videos of the systemic, unchecked abuse faced by the animals that end up in their fridge and on their plate. There are also very real environmental concerns. According to the National Geographic, standard meat-based diet in the US requires 1000 gallons of water to be produced versus the 400 used by a vegan diet. Pachamama Alliance, also cited that animal agriculture consumes ⅓ of the planet's freshwater occupies 45% of land, and accounts for 91% of the Amazon’s destruction, all of which greatly contribute to human-caused climate change.

When eating dinner, it can be hard to realise that it’s not just a ‘half and half’ that you are paying for, but an entire system of environmental degradation. What you do and don’t choose to eat can have both personal and political implications. More and more businesses are looking to tap into the vegan food market, which constitutes a diverse, global consumer base. McDonald’s, KFC, and Burger King are just a few of the food giants who have contributed to the explosion of mainstream vegan food in order to reap profits and garner good publicity. With its scope, the growing vegan population has incredible potential to truly impact the activities of big food corporations in the future by applying pressure on the issues of greatest concern, like more menu options and changes to environmental policy. . Even if people have not turned to veganism, it is common that they put animal rights and the condition of the environment on their list of causes they care about. And we all know who likes to pander to the issues that you seem to care about most: politicians. Vegan beliefs have become an important, controlling issue in terms of the political market for votes. In a system that rewards politicians and corporations that act - or at least try to appear to act - in these interests, switching lifestyles can have both a personal and political impact. You don’t have to throw red paint on fur to make a political statement; what food you buy and where you do and don’t buy it from can also powerfully signal your power.

Although, I staunchly support and recognise the multifaceted benefits to veganism, it would be remiss of me to not acknowledge the ‘dark side’ of the movement’s growth. At its worst, certain aspects of the movement are exclusionary, illusory, and unhealthy. The extreme sect of the vegan movement - which is often erroneously presented as the only side of it - has marred the reputation of the wider movement. Butcher shops have been vandalised and threatened with petrol bombs. Activists have pursued intimidation campaigns on and offline. ‘Purists’ have condemned any deviations from the diet - think youtubers crying as they confess to snacking on *gasp* animal flesh. This militant, fundamentalist approach is unfair and unproductive; it demonises those who care about the cause and try to participate in it in a way that their willpower and resources allow. Another thorn in the side of those who claim veganism to be a panacea is the impact of producing the diet’s staple foodstuffs. According to Emma Henderson of The Independent, demand for plant-based products like Beyond Meat also contributes to deforestation in the Amazon for soybean farming. While many see it as an attractive alternative to cow's milk and the abuse rife in its production, almond farming is actually one of the most water intensive agricultural processes. Moreover, vegan staples, such as quinoa, have become such a lucrative cash crops that locals can no longer afford to eat them. Veganism is not immune to some of the same problematic, harmful systems that it seeks to combat. This fact does not diminish its numerous benefits; but it is important to acknowledge the problems and changes that have and will arise as vegan diets become more popular. With all that there is to be said about the personal and external benefits of veganism, not everyone can afford to pursue the lifestyle. A plant-based diet remains a class privilege, and it would be both ignorant and careless to paint all meat eaters as evil, uneducated people hellbent on murdering animals. All around the world,

WHAT YOU DO AND DON’T CHOOSE TO EAT CAN HAVE BOTH PERSONAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS.

VEGANISM IS NOT IMMUNE TO SOME OF THE SAME PROBLEMATIC, HARMFUL SYSTEMS THAT IT SEEKS TO COMBAT. governments provide heavy subsidies to the farming industry to ensure mass production of cash crops, such as corn and beef. This keeps the costs of processed, unhealthy foods low, and the attractiveness of its consumption high. Privilege and systemic barriers are too often ignored or exploited in debates on alternative diets and lifestyles. The vegans very well may be coming - just not to a neighborhood near you. If this is the point in the article where you feel that you are an awful human being for not being a vegan, fear not, for we are not doomed to condemn the rest of humanity to face the full fury of climate change. A vegan lifestyle is not possible or favourable for everyone. Even I, the humble writer of this article, am not a vegan. Fortunately, there are other ways to change and adapt the way we live to reduce our impact on the Earth (albeit less effectively than switching to veganism). For example, numerous studies have supported “flexitarian” diets that reduce rather than exclude meat and dairy products. Think Meatless Monday but on a few more days. You wouldn’t be alone in trying, either. Waitrose found that ⅓ of UK consumers have deliberately reduced the amount of meat they eat or removed it from their diet entirely. Add this to the 1 in 8 vegetarian or vegan Britons, with a further 21% who identify as flexitarian, and the growth of the movement becomes even more visible. If you can, try to source your food more locally to cut down on the dangerous carbon footprint that’s created when produce is flown halfway across the world. In the Age of Social Media, even just

liking and sharing a pro-vegan/vegetarian/flexitarian post can help our dying planet. At the end of the day, doing what we can with whatever little resources we have can go a long way. Writing on the relationship between population pressure and agrarian change, the economist Ester Boserup opined that ‘necessity is the mother of invention.’ As global meat consumption rises, some scientists have begun to explore technology-based diet alternatives. In vitro meat - or cultured meat - is a promising process that would use the harvested stem cells of animals to generate industrial-scale quantities of meat. This would lead to less animals needed to meet consumer demand, less land, food and water need to rear them, and less slaughtering. But before we all hail the miracles of science, critics point to a more obvious strategy: a switch to veganism. Put simply, our planet and everyone on it may not have enough time to wait for lab meat. The future may already be here -- we just have to put down our burgers and wake up to it. We all know the stereotypical recipe for a vegan: hippy, young, obnoxiously and constantly namedrops their dietary plan without anyone asking, prays to avocadoes, and mutters ‘meat is murder’ in their sleep. The list could go on. But now it’s 2019, and it seems that this butt of the joke has had the last laugh. It’s nigh impossible to stick one belittling, stereotypical label on all those who are interested in or have actively begun reducing their meat and dairy consumption. Extending beyond a hippie fad or fashionable trend, veganism is a personal choice that can have wide-reaching political implications. In their own way, everyday people are tackling critical issues, from animal cruelty to global health and environmental justice. The vegans aren’t just coming - they’re already here and on the rise.

Helen Webley-Brown '22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at h.webley-brown@wustl.edu.

WU Political Review

Democratic Party Growing Pains Hanna Khalil

hen @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to ‘Make America Great Again’ has always been about making America white again. Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power.” So read House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s tweet, a direct response to President Trump’s racist attack of four freshmen congresswomen of color, telling them that they should “go back” to their “broken and crime infested” countries. Her defense of Representatives Alexandria OcasioCortez (D-NY-14), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-13), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA-7), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN-5) – more popularly known as the The Squad – seemingly quieted down weeks of what has been categorized as “infighting” within the Democratic Party. On the one side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, prioritizing the moderates who she argues are preserving the House’s Democrat majority, but are struggling to keep their seats in face of Republic pressure. In opposition, The Squad and their passionate, large following – unapologetically pushing their party left on issues ranging from instituting universal healthcare to combatting climate change as the national crisis that it is. Commentators have both praised Pelosi as pragmatic and dismissed as outdated, while criticizing her freshmen colleagues as overly idealistic or applauding them as revolutionary lightning rods. Their feud escalated through The Squad voting “no" on Pelosi’s border humanitarian aid bill, arguing that it did not include enough protections for the migrants it was meant to serve. But President Trump’s racist tweet provided a moment for Democrats to come together in their shared condemnation of his words. It offered Pelosi a moment of unity, quelling tension between her and The Squad. But surely, this is just a lull in the storm. Trump’s words have reminded Democrats what they share (a low bar of decency at the very least), but they have not resolved their differences. The debate within the Party will continue, as it should.

Because while terms such as “infighting” paint a negative picture of disarray, the disagreement between Speaker Pelosi and some of the newest members of her Caucus is also a sign of an evolving, growing party. Right now, it may appear as weakness, but it will ultimately be the

But whether or not The Squad’s vision of America aligns with yours, the conversation that they have planted within the Party – and yes, the natural disunity that results – should not be condemned. root of the Party’s strength. The first two years of Trump’s presidency have destabilized any norms of dignity previously expected of his office. That instability has also provided an opportunity for Democrats to assess and decide what they demand of their party, their leaders, and their country. The midterm elections that brought in The Squad has represented one answer to that question: a wave of young, progressive Democrats excited to create an America radically different not just than that of Trump, but also that of the Democratic Establishment. But whether or not the Squad’s vision of America aligns with yours, the conversation that they have planted within the Party – and yes, the accompanying disunity – should not be condemned. Our country is changing and the Democratic Party is changing with it, and that’s a good thing. While not always pretty, the tensions between Pelosi

and The Squad represent a healthy democracy, where there is space for difference in opinion and for free speech against your party’s leader. It’s growing pains – something to be embraced and encouraged. And it’s something that the Republican Party could learn from. While there are surely many Republicans privately loathing the direction that the President has taken their party, there has been relatively little “infighting” on that side of the aisle. His once outspoken critics present in the 2016 primaries have fallen quiet, as Trump successfully cultivates an atmosphere of fervent consensus through bullying. Indeed, beneath his tweet’s blatant racism there lies a deeper critique of dissent as itself un-American. While this may present an image of “unity” on the Right, it is at the cost of growth. It means that the day Trump leaves office, his party will be left on the shaky ground in which he planted blind allegiance. The Democratic Party is nurturing that ground, now. While it may seem that the conflict between Pelosi and The Squad runs counter to the goal of cultivating a strong enough party to remove Trump from the presidency, making room for this debate is what makes the Democrats’ America fundamentally different than Trump’s. It’s an America where representative democracy means that the demands of a diverse range of constituencies are heard and debated by their elected officials, challenging us to be better. Hopefully, Speaker Nancy Pelosi will use this moment of solidarity with her freshman colleagues to remember that as Speaker, it is her job to embrace and not quiet difference. If she does, her party will not be defined as simply the antithesis of Trump, but by its commitment to progress towards a better, fairer, and healthier America than we have yet to know.

Hanna Khalil ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at hannakhalil@wustl.edu.

Growth

reshad art

WU Political Review

Terms and Conditions Will Apply Christian Monzón, Staff Editor

efore the Fourth of July, I made a Facebook account for my summer job – I worked in Wash U’s Office of Scholar Programs and needed an account to invite scholars from the Class of 2023 to the official Facebook group of the Rodriguez Scholars Program. So I followed them, invited them all to the Facebook group and then went on vacation for a weekend. I always heard about Facebook abusing privacy and using our personal information to profit, but I thought it was probably harmless. Like almost all Facebook users and ordinary consumers (more than 90% according to polls from Deloitte), when creating my account, I declined to read the terms and conditions – only after I created the account did I investigate them. I expected the terms to list out ways Facebook profits off our data (Facebook does not hide its mission – Mark Zuckerberg himself admitted to Congress on April of 2018 that Facebook uses its users’ data to strategically place advertisements based on individual preferences). I did not, however, expect the vagueness of Facebook’s terms and conditions. Facebook’s conditions state that “we may use all of the information we receive about” the user “to serve ads that are more relevant”; the terms and conditions say that this information includes “things we infer from your use of Facebook” – a statement that, once the consumer agrees, means Facebook can rely on unclear and unknown means to acquire personal data. Facebook’s inferring can stem from “information from some of the websites and apps you use” on devices with which you use Facebook, meaning that Facebook can pull whatever you do on the internet to personalize ads and increase connection to others. That explains why when I returned to St Louis, Facebook tried to connect me to friends from my hometown and some distant relatives despite me only following Wash U students and declining to provide any information connecting me to my home or family. While connecting people together sounds great (after all, I would love to reconnect with my cousins), Facebook can only effectively do so by trying to manage billions of people’s data, which leads to three main defects: negligent mismanagement,

As a capitalist corporation, Facebook behaves consistently with its ultimate goal – profit and expansion. commodifying personal information, and concentrating power in Facebook executives. When billions of people trust large companies like Facebook with our web history and personal information, it leads to a highly volatile situation where everyone’s information is in the same place. Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm owned by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, took full advantage by stealing personal information from 50 million Facebook users to target them with personalized political advertisements advancing Cambridge Analytica’s agenda. Facebook, however, not only failed to stop Cambridge Analytica from stealing information but in 2015 (according to documents originally leaked in the Observer and later confirmed in a Facebook statement) Facebook found out about the theft and took very limited steps to secure the data. Cambridge Analytica, in turn, also exposed Facebook’s use of data as a means to turn us into commodities – like Cambridge Analytica merely sees users as voters to exploit for its agenda, personalized advertisements on Facebook exploit users’ information for profit. Facebook’s – and any other free social media company – business model revolves on selling our information for profit, turning Facebook users from consumers into products. As we post our entire lives on Facebook, the company uses our lives for its profit while marketing itself as a benevolent organization that (in its own words) “give[s] people the power to build community and bring the world closer together”.

With so many users (nearly 2.4 billion) and so much information, Facebook’s potential for connectivity and “bring[ing] the world closer together” also leads to a tremendous – and dangerous – concentration of power. Documents leaked to the Observer revealed how in Canada, India, Vietnam, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, and the entire European Union, Facebook threatened to withhold investment and used the promise of building new data centers and headquarters (particularly in cases of Canada, Malaysia, and Ireland) to dissuade politicians from promoting privacy legislation. While Facebook grew large enough to manipulate public policy worldwide, it somehow grew too large to control its media platforms on a global scale. For Myanmar, a country of over 50 million people, Facebook devoted only two Burmese speakers to reviewing problematic posts from abroad. In fact, to this day, no Facebook employees operate in Myanmar – a country where for many, Facebook is among the only accessible websites. In Myanmar, Facebook users grew from 1.2 million in 2014 to 18 million in 2018. Concurrently, Facebook posts in Myanmar popularized anti-Muslim sentiment and correlated with an increase in genocidal rhetoric in public policy and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the country. Not only did Facebook neglect to employ people speaking Burmese, Myanmar’s native language, but even its algorithms failed to translate and recognize hate speech; for example, Facebook’s algorithm translated “Kill all the kalars that you see in Myanmar; none of them should be left alive” to “I shouldn’t have a rainbow in Myanmar”. Despite Facebook’s pledge to remedy the problem, it remains a platform used to incite violence and hate speech. While I knew none of these details before creating my Facebook account, I did know the following about Facebook: it is among the largest companies in the world, it uses our personal information to sell advertisements and can spread information extremely quickly – impacting even those of us without Facebook accounts. So if I already knew sufficient information to scare me out of making a Facebook, why did I

Growth

make one? Because the modern world demands it – after all, I created my account for my job. Despite scandal after scandal rattling Facebook, the number of Facebook users continues to climb. In fact, since the beginning of 2017, it climbed from under 2 billion to nearly 2.4 billion users. In January, the company reported fourth-quarter revenue of $16.9 billion and on the week of March 7 of 2019 Mark Zuckerberg’s net worth climbed $2.8 billion. If people like me – who hate Facebook and know its scandals – still exist on Facebook against our own opinions, and Facebook continues to profit, nobody should expect Facebook to change its ways. As a capitalist corporation, it behaves consistently with its ultimate goal – profit and expansion. If we cannot easily quit Facebook and cannot trust Facebook to regulate itself when it profits so tremendously, how can we ensure greater accountability in Facebook, greater protection of our privacy, and cut the negative impacts of connecting to Facebook while maximizing the positives ones for the public good? It stems from what me – and most other Facebook users – care least about: the terms and conditions. By checking the box under Facebook’s (and any social media platform’s) terms and conditions, users allow Facebook to conduct whatever operations they want. Despite not knowing that Facebook can track your entire internet usage,

If I already knew sufficient information to scare me out of making a Facebook, why did I make one? Because the modern world demands it.

we allow them to do so because we lack the time or motivation to read all the terms and conditions. Mark Zuckerberg publicly recognized while testifying before Congress that “long privacy policies are very confusing. And if you make it long and spell out all the detail, then you’re probably going to reduce the percent of people who read it and make it accessible to them.” Facebook knows its policy causes confusion and frustration. During that same testimony, Republican Senator John Kennedy vocalized popular resentment over Facebook’s lack of transparency in its user agreement. “The purpose of a user agreement is to cover Facebook’s rear end, not inform users of their rights.” He continued, “I’m going to suggest you go home and rewrite it” so that “the average American user can understand.” With respect to the Senator, his mere suggestion is insufficient. Comparatively, the European Union passed the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation). Europe’s privacy laws strictly maintain that companies like Facebook cannot use illegible terms and conditions with confusing language and industry jargon; moreover, users must easily access the user agreement and must have access to data companies process from them. The European Union simplified terms and conditions – in turn, simpler and more transparent user agreements ease users’ ability to revoke consent to Facebook and decrease Facebook’s ability to use vague and confusing rhetoric to gain consent to harvest more data than the average user would feel comfortable giving away. With less power over its user agreement, Facebook will inherently own less authority in stealing information for personalized ads. Less authority over consumers will limit its power over advertisers because with fewer data to personalize ads, Facebook’s advertisements become less valuable and Facebook may see profits decrease. With smaller profits, Facebook must limit the money it spends lobbying politicians overseas because it will have less money to spend.

With less power over its user agreement, Facebook inherently will own less authority in stealing information for personalized ads. Less authority over consumers will simultaneously limit its power over advertisers. Facebook proceeded to change its format in Europe to update what it shares; its advertising and the accessibility of information Facebook collects. Essentially, while European rules likely will not completely fix Facebook’s problems, forcing it to change its terms and conditions can increase transparency, which can reduce Facebook’s access to personal information, reduce the volatility of data to be stolen by third parties and cut Facebook’s ability to meddle in others’ affairs. We need not unrealistically expect Facebook to change itself; transforming Senator Kennedy’s words into policy – as Europe did – can change it for us.

Christian Monzón ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at christian.monzon@wustl.edu.

WU Political Review

Growth

Sea of Green: Rethinking Food Eco-Labels Kalen Davison Artwork (left) by Natalia Oledzka

he complexity and extent of modern environmental issues has left many individuals feeling paralyzed. Clinging to their agency, many particularly idealistic environmentalists turn to the mantra “vote with your fork,” the idea that one can help things, albeit in a small way, by purchasing more sustainable foods. But what value does a vote have when it is being cast for— at best—a few inscrutably arbitrary words associated—often falsely— with environmental superiority? If a well-informed populace is a prerequisite for a functional democracy, the everyday democracy in American grocery stores is broken. While consumers factor in variables such as taste, nutrition, and price into their decision-making processes, the very real social costs—from climate change, to algal blooms, to land degradation—attached to certain products are rarely considered. But consumers are not to blame. Even for the most environmentally conscious of consumers the time needed to carefully research each product is simply not worth the tradeoff. Most turn then to what is readily available: the information on the packaging itself, which is at best insufficient, if not deliberately misleading. To maximize profits, food companies strategically invoke terms like “local,” “GMO-free,” and “sustainably-sourced” on flashy labels, aiming to attract a larger share of the market. But do these terms or certifications really ensure a product is more environmentally friendly than an unlabeled alternative? Of course not. “Organic,” for example, refers to a process that could reduce or intensify impact depending on the context. Most labels are inherently flawed in this regard; they communicate only the most convenient elements of the story and neglect what really matters: results. It is too easy for food companies to capitalize on vagueness and misconceptions to brand themselves as environmentally friendly. While

pro-environment consumers are pleased to pay a higher price to support what they perceive a vote for a better world, food companies escape making potentially costly—but genuinely impactful—changes. If this arrangement persists, economic incentives for food manufacturers to operate more sustainably will remain weak if existent, and society will continue to pick up the cost. To combat the imperfect information that plagues the grocery store economy, there ought to be a more objective, precise standard for how environmental impact is communicated on food products. The private sector has made strides to make this vision a reality. Whole Foods scores all the meat they sell based upon a 5-step standard, and organizations like GreenChoice and HowGood use their extensive databases to calculate products’ impact across a range of areas. Although these schemes show great promise, they often presuppose that the public trusts the evaluation’s accuracy or are aware that such tools even exist. And unfortunately, unless grocery stores were legally obligated to label their products via a government-licensed evaluator, these limitations will likely always constrain the private sector’s influence in this area. Although no standardized food labelling schemes have been mandated by any government to date, there have been a series of other similar programs operating abroad and domestically in the last few decades. A 1992 EU directive, for example, required that all fridges, televisions, and washing machines come with a sticker grading their energy efficiency. Initially, 75% of relevant appliances scored between G and D (low efficiency), whereas today 98% are classified as an A++ or better. In the same period, an International Energy Agency Study found that the energy efficiency of labelled appliances increased three times faster than unlabeled appliances. The equivalent American program, called Energy Star, has been similarly effective. Although these programs demonstrate that

government-set informational standards can make the economy more socially efficient, measuring a relatively objective phenomenon like energy efficiency is more straightforward than measuring environmental impact in its entirety. The task of developing an environmental impact metric for food products would inevitably present controversy concerning the weighing of different types of environmental impact. Would CO2 emissions be factored into the metric? Would bio-centric perspectives be considered? Would ethical concerns be recognized? The multidimensional nature of the information means it could probably not be meaningfully distilled into a single objective grade or score, but perhaps into a report card of sorts: a grade for climate, a grade for water pollution, a grade for land degradation, and so on—much like GreenChoice’s model. There is no denying that the status quo is stubbornly resistant to change, and legal disputes and partisanship would likely prevent such a bill from passing anytime soon. But, with regards to the normative question—the way things ought to be—it is axiomatic that detailed, comprehensive, and objective labelling requirements on food products would yield a more sustainable economy. Until then, each vote will continue to be cast into a sea of spurious green.

Kalen Davison ‘19 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at davison@wustl.edu.

WU Political Review

I love women’s soccer, but not the USWNT. Sienna Ruiz

n July 7th, the U.S. Women’s National Team, also known as the USWNT by their adoring fans, won the Women’s World Cup. They came home to a parade in New York City, appearances on late night shows, and endless sponsorship deals Thousands welcomed them and flooded social media with calls for equal pay for the women’s team. But I watched from afar and refused to join this celebration. I spent my summer obsessed with finding the reason for why I could not cheer wholeheartedly for the team. Was it the off-putting sensation surrounding patriotism in Trump’s America that I could not separate from fans waving American flags? Was it the VAR, the controversial Virtual Assistant Referee that gave technology the power to irreversibly change games and conveniently helped the U.S. with quite a few penalty calls? Both played a role in my ambivalence towards the team, but neither completely explained my stance. No, the reason for my mixed feelings was something far more personal. To be clear, I am not trying to be a killjoy. The USNWT’s wins were deserved, and it was delightful to watch young girls cheer them on. I myself used to be a die-hard fan of these players, cheering on Kelly O’Hara and Christen Press as they played at Stanford. I remember as a kid fervently watching my favorite team, the F.C. Gold Pride of the now folded Women’s Professional League, represent the Bay Area. Seeing Megan Rapinoe carry the team deeply satisfied my 7th grade self who decorated her binder with a collage of a highlighter blonde midfielder and proudly explained to my classmates who she was even though they did not recognize her. But it was this girlhood enthusiasm that was exploited by the “pay to play” model that directs youth soccer in America in ways that I cannot forgive. At a cost of thousands of dollars, my teammates and I toured the California suburbs as part of private clubs, with the desperate hope

As tuition has risen to precipitous levels and colleges have become more and more like businesses, the link between sports and college admissions has made women’s soccer more cut-throat and exclusionary than ever. of recruitment by college scouts. There is a reason that the most salient image of soccer in the American public imagination is that of the “soccer mom;” it takes immense amounts of generational wealth and resources to navigate soccer in this country. It is not the people’s sport, played by all kids on the street corners and empty lots of cities like it is around the world. Here, soccer is available only to the wealthy and if you’re a girl, you have one goal: to play at the college level. Ever since the 1972 passage of the Title IX civil rights law that demanded, among other things, that equal amounts of resources be devoted to women’s sports as the men’s, women’s soccer has been inextricably tied to universities in America. As tuition has risen to precipitous levels and colleges have become more and more

like businesses, this link to college admissions has made women’s soccer more cut-throat and exclusionary than ever. To even enter the realm of highly competitive women’s soccer costs thousands of dollars, not to mention extreme amounts of time and resources from one’s family for travel. Membership to one of the teams in the Elite Club National League, the most prominent league in the country, can cost upwards of $10,000 a year. After securing a spot on the team, you then must cover the cost of national tournaments that are across the country but guarantee the presence of the most sought-after college scouts. If you are lucky enough to be recruited early to a Division I or II school, you compete for a limited amount of scholarships, or you’re left to pay the cost of tuition. At a Division III school, there are no scholarships available and it is up to you to find a merit scholarship or get financial aid to make the difference. Where men can bypass college altogether and play in professional leagues in America or Europe if they are good enough and so desire, women must submit to the college process if they hope to continue their career. They barely have access to precarious leagues that offer meager wages to even the most established players. Therefore, women are conditioned from a young age to fight for spots on college teams and participate in the college admissions process that in itself is increasingly becoming the purview of wealthier and wealthier families. The privatization of soccer development and the connection between women’s soccer and college not only aligns the sport with the increasingly unequal economic terrain in this country but also affects young girl’s growth in detrimental ways. Ideally, sports offer children a means of exploring the limits of their body while also dealing with conflict management on the field. However, when we conflate access to college with the success of women’s physical skills, we cause a cycle wherein our bodies are only worth far they can take us towards institutional

Growth

markers of success. This is an especially damaging cycle in a reality where soccer is primarily accessible to upper-class white women. In my days scratching the surface of elite soccer in California, I carried a deep shame for not being wealthy enough, blonde enough, thin enough. I hated myself for not living in a mansion in the suburbs and for not looking like the girls around me, but I thought that by playing harder I could overcome those obstacles. I was an intense, demanding teammate, often yelling at others constantly, and my body still bears the scars of broken bones and scrapes that I believed were all part of the process. On the sidelines, we would speak with a certain pride about our injuries, treating torn ACLs and concussions as medals of honor. Games were full of spats between just about everyone – between teammates, between opponents, between players and referees, between players and parents. None of this seemed out of the ordinary when we were

When we conflate access to college with the success of women’s physical skills, we cause a cycle wherein our bodies only worth is in how far it can take us towards institutional markers of success.

all part of a larger system where college was the Promethean fruit available only to the precious few. All but two players on the winning roster for the USWNT are products of the college soccer pipeline. Upon the team’s return from France, article after article proclaimed their win confirmation of the excellence of women’s soccer development in America and urged a pay raise for the most successful contingent of U.S. Soccer Federation as well as increased attention for the NWSL, the National Women’s Soccer League. What makes me most upset about the response to the U.S. win is that it marks a poverty of imagination when it comes to women’s soccer. Is equality with the men’s team, a struggling enterprise that has failed to truly compete on the world stage or represent an inclusive model of youth development, what we really want? Is higher viewership for a chronically underfunded women’s league that is completely separated from the men’s league a pathway to sustainability? Equal wages and a more popular national league will only validate a broken system wherein only the wealthiest have a chance to play if it is not joined with more radical calls to action. Instead, the Women’s World Cup can be treated as an opportunity to imagine more. In Iceland, government investment in a robust youth club league has allowed the small island nation to enjoy immense success in international tournaments. The Liga MX Femenil of Mexico has professional teams coinciding with men’s clubs that offer teams for under-17 and under-23 year olds, following in the models of European clubs that have facilitated massive improvement in their national teams through club play. Beyond insisting on the implementation of existing models of equitable youth soccer development, the USWNT could call for FIFA to recognize men’s national teams only if they show sufficient investment in their women’s programs. It is irresponsible to call for equal wages without also recognizing patterns of global inequality that predominantly affect women of color in

In my days scratching the surface of elite soccer in California, I carried a deep shame for not being wealthy enough, blonde enough, thin enough. countries in the Global South. Higher pay for 28 American women is not enough to help girls in this country or around the world. When I think of the expectations I have for this team, I am reminded of when James Baldwin wrote in Notes on a Native Son, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually”. I need this team to demand more from the state of women’s soccer in this country because I am still fighting for the girl I used to be, the one who idolized this team before being crushed by the realities of the U.S. soccer system that excluded her at every turn.

Sienna Ruiz ’20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at sienna.ruiz@wustl.edu.

natalia art

leslie art

WU Political Review

“I am Bully-Proof” Rohan Palacios, Staff Editor

n the 2018 Democratic Primary, activist Cori Bush battled Congressman Lacy Clay for the seat he has held since succeeding his father, Bill Clay, in 2001. Bush hoped to combine support from national progressive groups, public backing from prominent allies, and her award-winning career as an advocate for marginalized communities in St. Louis to become the first woman to represent the city in Congress. Unseating the popular incumbent was a monumental task, and Bush’s bid for office ultimately came up well short, earning just 37% of the vote against Clay’s 57%. Still, the campaign revealed the appetite for an insurgent campaign in St. Louis, and Bush has already begun to campaign for election in 2020. To many, Bush’s persistence in challenging Clay is puzzling. There are not many politicians who can match Clay’s formidable record in St. Louis. Throughout a political career spanning four decades, Bill Clay, who is most famous as a forceful voice for civil rights and co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), never lost an election. His son has maintained the family’s undefeated record since inheriting his father’s seat. Bush’s 20-point primary loss in 2018 represents the strongest challenge to Clay’s position years. Previous challengers Russ Carnahan and Maria Chappelle-Nadal were dispatched by more than 30 points in 2012 and 2016 respectively. The Clay legacy carries weight in St. Louis. Decades of holding political office mean that the Congressman is well-positioned to pick up key endorsements. Those years have also seen the development of an extensive fundraising network which allows Clay’s campaigns to vastly outspend any challenger. In addition to the robust infrastructure underpinning his candidacy, Clay can also point to his relatively progressive record to push back on Bush’s assertions that he is out of touch. He has taken liberal stances on key issues including immigration, gun control, reproductive rights, and criminal justice reform. He is a member of the Medicare for All caucus which advocates for single-payer healthcare, a central policy in the agenda of progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Bush’s

Bush stepped into political organizing in the aftermath of Ferguson, raising her voice to advocate for the change her community needs but lacks the political representation to bring about. primary challenge seems to have pushed Clay to engage even more with his progressive colleagues. When Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced her Green New Deal legislation, Clay jumped at the opportunity to be a co-sponsor, calling the bill, “transformative, progressive legislation that will make America stronger, safer and healthier for generations to come." The Riverfront Times noted that this level of environmental activism marked a departure from Clay’s past, recalling that “in 2018, the League of Conservation Voters gave him an 89% rating on its National Environmental Scorecard Lifetime, placing him in the bottom third of congressional Democrats.” Clay has also positioned himself in support of Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, an alliance that could turn into a valuable endorsement, and has already helped raise Clay’s profile outside of St. Louis. Bush, therefore, faces a multi-faceted challenge. She must raise public awareness of herself to have any hope of competing with the city’s bestknown leader. She must differentiate herself, and then convince voters that those differences make her a better representative. During the 2018 race, Bush emphasized her engagement

with the district, contrasting her experience with community organizing during the Ferguson protests to Clay’s slow response and reluctance to support Ferguson activists. According to Bush, the lack of strong support for the activists in Ferguson reflects a larger pattern of disengagement from the district. Bush and her supporters accuse Clay of spending more time concerned with advancing his career in Washington than with advocating for the needs of his constituents. This is a crucial distinction for Bush’s supporters. While Clay may take a variety of progressive stances, his critics question how much energy he invests in turning those stances into legislative action. They point to young members of Congress like Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley who have shifted the party’s agenda while engaging millions of voters. A core aspect of Bush’s pitch to voters is that St. Louis has not benefited from its Congressman’s rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party.

The race between Clay and Bush is just one of many primaries playing out across the nation between established Democrats and progressive challengers eager to remake the party with their communitydriven brand of politics.

Growth

Per Vice News, in 2018, Bush rejected corporate donations, while Clay’s campaign committee accepted over $26,000 from commercial banks. Running campaigns independent of corporate money is the most important distinction that progressives draw between themselves and their intra-party rivals.” No one can accuse Bush of being out of touch with her district. She grew up in St. Louis and raised her children here while putting herself through nursing school. In addition to working for a community based mental health organization, Bush stepped into political organizing in the aftermath of Ferguson, raising her voice to advocate for the change her community needs but lacks the political representation to bring about. In an interview with Refinery29, Bush pointed to her lived experience as an important qualification: “I’ve worked for minimum wage while trying to raise two children. I’ve lived uninsured for quite a while. So I think having that experience [I] can better speak to the issues and help to build the right bills to actually touch people.” Highlighting her deep connection to St. Louis and zeal for reforming broken systems of policing and justice among others may not be enough to topple a legendary incumbent. To have a fighting chance, Bush will have to criticize the more checkered aspects of Clay’s political record. She might start is with a puzzling example of Clay legislating on behalf of Wall Street. In 2014, the Huffington Post named Clay as one of a group of lawmakers at the center of a fight within the Congressional Black Caucus about the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform legislation. The controversy arose from that group of lawmakers “pushing for a host of seemingly arcane measures that would undermine Dodd-Frank’s rules on financial derivatives, the complex contracts at the heart of the 2008 meltdown.” This despite Clay’s previous vote in favor of Dodd-Frank, a

vote which he continues to cite as evidence of his progressive outlook on financial regulation. At the time, this maneuvering touched of a fight within the CBC reflecting larger tensions within the Democratic party about how to interact with Wall Street. That divergence also colors how campaigns seek funding. Per Vice News, in 2018, Bush rejected corporate donations, while Clay’s campaign committee accepted over $26,000 from commercial banks. Running campaigns independent of corporate money is the most important distinction that progressives draw between themselves and their intra-party rivals. Bush also called for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) which was founded in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush and has been responsible for implementing some of the Trump administration’s most horrific immigration policies. Clay has criticized the agency but stopped short of calling for its abolition. The race between Clay and Bush is just one of many primaries playing out across the nation between established Democrats and progressive challengers eager to remake the party with their community-driven brand of politics. Senior Democrats like Steny Hoyer (MD-5), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), and Eliot Engel (NY16) have been put on notice by progressive challenges from newcomers Mckayla Wilkes, Jessica Cisneros, and Jamaal Bowman respectively. Unlike these first time candidates, Bush will benefit from her 2018 run cycle when over

53,000 voters cast their ballots in support of Bush despite Clay’s outspending Bush by nearly five times in the pre-primary reporting period. She has already established connections with national progressive groups like Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, and Brand New Congress along with leaders like Dr. Angela Davis, California Representative Ro Khanna, and Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez. Given the magnitude of the challenge ahead, she will need all of those things, along with a massive grassroots effort. A win in St. Louis would provide a massive boost to the nationwide progressive movement. However, the road there will be difficult and littered with naysayers. Cori Bush is undeterred. Her campaign website proclaims “I am Bullyproof. My desire to see change is greater than any fear of what could happen to me in pursuit of it.”

Rohan Palacios ’21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rpalacios@wustl.edu.

COLLEGE ENDOWMENTS: A COLONIAL EMPIRE Ishaan Shah, Executive Director Artwork (left) by Leslie Liu, Assistant Design Director & (right) Catherine Ju, Design Director

n 1793, General Cornwallis, one of the leading British generals in the American Revolutionary War and later, the GovernorGeneral of India, introduced the Permanent Settlement Act to the Indian territory of Bengal, which instituted the zamindari land ownership system into Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, and Varanasi. Under the zamindari system, each region would have an appointed zamindar (land owner) who would collect taxes on the ryots (peasants) who occupied his territory. The zamindar would send the majority back to the East India Company, but he would keep one-tenth of his/her winnings for personal gain. The zamindaris became extremely wealthy, hoarding jewels, building mansions, and trading in expensive textiles; the East India Company and the Commonwealth fared even better. A study by Lakshmi Iyer and Abhijit Banerjee found that 150 years later, territories that had a zamindari land system continue to have significantly lower investments in health and education than the land systems

where peasants directly or collectively sent their taxes to the East India Company. The inequalities perpetuated by the unequal division of land in the zamindari system remained long after the land was redistributed and the regions continue to struggle to recover. The authors found that the land inequality was so damaging to the trust between local elite and the peasants that there was significantly lower per capita public expenditure on development in landowner states when compared to non-landowner states. Throughout history, we can see the irreparable damage caused by the concentration of land into wealthy privately-owned companies, trusts and funds. Why does it continue to happen?

System. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The Ford Foundation. The collective colleges of Oxbridge. These endowments toe the line between charitable organization and nonprofit corporation, all while providing little to no public information about their actions, responsibilities, and motives. Their primary motive is self-preservation: their principal value is kept intact or expanded through rounds of raising capital from wealthy donors while a small part of the principal is made available for yearly use and maintenance. Many students, faculty, politicians, and professionals have asked the question: where is the money going?

Today, the oligarchs with deep pockets are not the state-sponsored corporations of old like the Dutch and British East India Company. We have new faces, who under the guise of social welfare, have amassed disproportionate global capital. Harvard University. The University of Texas

In April of 1986, UC Berkeley students built a shantytown in the Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office to protest apartheid and advocate the University of Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s divestment from South Africa. In response to student protests across the nation, 155 higher education endowments divested

from South Africa between 1976 and 1988. Fossil Free Wash U has continually advocated for the Washington University Endowment to divest from fossil fuels since 2014, when the Student Union passed a resolution 14-2 to support divesting from the top 200 fossil fuel companies. As of 2019, twenty colleges have divested from fossil fuels in some form. Students have long recognized the damaging ways in which a university endowment’s management strategy may conflict with its broader goals of social good and tried to keep their university endowments accountable. Endowments dabble in questionable investments mostly because of their scale. To diversify their investments, endowments cannot put most of their money into the typical investment classes of stocks, bonds, cash, and index and mutual funds, classes which individual investors typically invest in. The best performing endowments have bet against the variation in the market by putting money into hedge funds, private equity, natural resources, futures, real estate, and more recently, farmland. These investments have a high barrier of entry for most individual investors and are thus much less likely to follow the trends of the stock market. As the garden-variety alternative investment strategies dry up and demonstrate lower returns than predicted, more and more endowments are turning to buying up large tracts of the lands of indigenous people. This farmland is often under-valued due to weak property rights regulation and outdated equity assessments. In 2019, The nonprofit GRAIN uncovered Harvard University

Endowment’s investment in over 740,000 acres of Brazilian savannah, some of which Harvard Endowment’s subsidiary companies are contracting out for use by agribusiness. Over the last six years, Grapevine Capital Partners, a Harvard subsidiary company, has acquired land with access to precious groundwater reserves in California’s Napa Valley to hedge against California’s growing water scarcity troubles. An Oakland Institute report revealed that Harvard University, Vanderbilt University, and Spelman College were invested in Emergent Asset Management, a UK-based private LLC which operates the South African joint venture EmVest to buy agricultural land in Africa. Emergent Asset Management reports that villagers at one of the farms operated by EMVest did not consent to the land transfer or receive legal written notice about it. Each of these cases prominently features the Harvard University Endowment, by far the largest endowment in the world. While Harvard’s endowment needs to diversify the most to compete with the growth rates of its smaller peers, more university endowments are catching up to the size of Harvard’s. The University of Texas System endowment is valued at $31 billion and Yale’s is not far behind at $29 billion. These growing endowments will feel the same financial pressure to partake in international land-grabbing as other investment classes become harder to speculate on.

far the most devastating impact of colonialism. Land-grabbing leads to ecological degradation, population displacement, and ethnic violence. In Brazil and in the Napa Valley, local farmers are already complaining that Harvard’s acquisitions are being used to heavily exploit the local water supply by polluting local water sources and using up existing groundwater reserves. La Via Campesina collected testaments from farmers who were the victims of land-grabbing globally. In the Congo, many farmers were forced to move into cities and women had to work in factories in significantly poorer conditions. In Brazil, people who had their land taken from them were often forced to work for the new owners under significantly worse working conditions. In India, the land tenure system exacerbated caste, religious, and linguistic divisions which remain prominent in Indian society today. We may see certain ethnic groups bear the disproportionate burden of having their land taken from them, deepening existing inequalities. University students, faculty, and employees must demand that their endowments abstain from international land-grabbing and make all international land acquisitions public. Not doing so threatens the livelihood and property rights of millions of people. In Yaa Gyasi’s Homegoing, she writes, “You cannot stick a knife in a goat and then say, Now I will remove my knife slowly, so let things be easy and clean, let there be no mess. There will always be blood.” Ishaan Shah ‘20 studies in the College of Arts &

Taking away land from indigenous people leaves hundreds of years of historical damage and is by

Sciences. He can be reached at ishaanshah@wustl.edu.

TO P U. S. U NIV ERSITY ENDOWME NT F UNDS INVE STING IN FARMLA N D

UNIVERSIT Y ENDOWMENT

RE D I N D I C AT ES P O RT I O N O F A S S E TS ( $B N ) ALLO C AT E D TO N AT U R A L R E SOU RCE S

FAR M L AN D LOCAT ED IN

University of Texas 4.98 out of 40.3 billion

Australia, Latin America

Harvard University 4.64 out of 36 billion

Africa, Oceania, Latin America, US

Stanford University 2.30 out of 29.1 billion

Unknown

A significant percentage of today's university endowments is tied up in natural resources investments. Many of these include direct investments in farmland found around the world.

Sources: The Daily Texan & Perqin

WU Political Review

Agtech for the Ag Coast Zachary Sorensen

he United Nation’s median projection for the population of the world in 2050 is 9.7 billion people -- an increase of over 25 percent in the planet’s population and 2 billion additional people from 2019. Although seemingly far off, 2050 is only a little over 30 years from now, meaning that most of us will live to see middle-age in a world with almost 10 billion people. We will also live in a world where 10 billion people need to eat without exacerbating a climate crisis 30 years more developed than right now, which presents as many opportunities as it does challenges; it calls for extraordinary innovation—enough to boost worldwide food production by 50 percent from 2013, which the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN estimates will be required. The opportunity lies in agricultural technology. Solutions can be found and developed that enable more food production and in a way that can diminish greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. This calls for major changes, and the people and communities that can deliver those changes stand to profit enormously. St. Louis is uniquely poised to be a major player in agtech (agriculture technology), partly because it already is. It has major plant sciences research centers such as Bayer Crop Sciences (formerly Monsanto) and the Danforth Plant Science Center as well as similar facilities for adjacent industries such as BioGenerator (for biotech). Additionally, local universities provide some of the foundations necessary for successful innovation. For example, patents often emerge from university backed research and some patents are licensed by the university—in the case of WashU in 2017 this resulted in $16.9 million in

Most of us will live to see middle-age in a world with almost 10 billion people. 26

10 billion people need to eat without exacerbating a climate crisis. revenue and, in the same year, 8 new startups were founded by faculty. Likewise, higher education is a pipeline for talented labor for startups; for example, St. Louis Community College offers students a paid internship program at plant and life sciences startups (and cheap labor for the startups) that can lead to long term skill sets and employment. Furthermore, St. Louis is quickly becoming the “ag coast” of America—a label embraced by local and state officials—due to the heavy flow of agricultural goods (primarily grain) in barges on the Mississippi river– many of which are loaded and serviced by facilities in the St. Louis area. These factors, along with the fact that many surrounding regional communities have strong agricultural industries provide St. Louis with the resources it needs to become a center of agtech innovation—reaping the benefits in terms of jobs, investment, and status.

supporting early stage agtech companies to ensure affordable access to lab space and improve access to early and middle stage capital. Secondly, the city and the state should adopt one of the key recommendations of the St. Louis Regional Chamber report—building an agtech brand in St. Louis. St. Louis should promote the idea of the “ag coast” as the perception of St. Louis as the nationwide leader in agtech can help drive people to start or expand their startups here. Furthermore, foreign companies may choose to make St Louis their gateway to the United States and expand their organizations in the area, but only if they can be assured of a strong labor pool and accessible infrastructure. This international development would be necessary for St. Louis to lead the world in agtech moving forward. Closer to home, Wash U can commit to offering more classes focused on agriculture and encourage prospective scientists to consider entrepreneurship as a potential career path. The path to the world 30 years from now presents a host of challenges that will change the way the world works, and the way people live—if St. Louis can change too, it can help influence that path for the better and create its own place in that new world.

The rise of St. Louis as an agtech hub has already seen dividends; in a 2018 report the St. Louis Regional Chamber projected $90 million worth of venture investment in the St. Louis agtech sector for that year, a 440 percent increase since 2014. As fledgling companies grow—which, in agtech, can take many years— they will create additional jobs, investment, and technology that will drive greater efficiency and sustainability in agriculture. Ideally, these startups will form part of the network of resources that helped with their own formation and draw new startups into the St. Louis area. While certainly welcome, the idea of St. Louis as the centerpiece of an industry dragging a new green revolution forward is uncertain. St. Louis should continue investing in resources

Zachary Sorensen ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at zacharysorensen@wustl.edu.

Growth

wupr ad

WU Political Review

A Costly, Not So Free Market Caroline Foshee

et’s Make This Economy Work for Everyone” was one of the most spoken phrases on the Democratic presidential debate stages on June 26 and 27. Elizabeth Warren kicked off the first debate asking America: “Who is this economy really working for?,” answering her own question: “for those with money.” What do these politicians even mean? Why does the economy work for the rich, while inflicting financial hardship on millions of others? What can be done to fix these problems? In short, the free market economy inevitably leads to unequal distribution of wealth and resources, and the most viable solution is to integrate more socialist policy into welfare and tax reforms. These reforms would provide more social support to our citizens and alleviate many negative effects of large corporations. The current divide between rich and poor makes it difficult to deny the need for change. While the rich get richer, the middle class shrinks and the working class gets larger but poorer. CEOs make hundreds of times more than their employees, a gap that has been deepening since the eighties. As a result of their lower incomes, the poorest Americans live in communities with significantly higher crime rates, underfunded schools, and poorer health outcomes. Poor children are likely to endure this same cycle, a cycle that persists for generations thanks to the free market economy. The free market is the structure under which our current economy operates. It allows the free exchange of goods and services, meaning people can buy and sell what they want, but the commodities available and their respective prices depend on collective supply and demand. It is closely linked to capitalism, which is largely a product of the free market. Capitalism is the system under which the people, rather than the government, own the nation’s machinery and production technologies. Both are major contributors to the socioeconomic inequality we see today. When the free market economy first emerged in post-Feudal Europe, with merchants and artisans serving as the founding members of a new

Our government could be doing much more to preserve citizens’ livelihoods.

world system, it seemed like a promising alternative to generations of restricted economic activity. People saw the free market as a path to social mobility, to produce their ways to a better life. And produce they did. Ever since, our production has only increased, which has ultimately led us to our current standard of living, with more overall wealth than ever before. The free market worked its magic by allowing people to specialize and innovate, leading to more technological advances than ever. Though it has had its benefits, this technological innovation is also a major source of socioeconomic inequality, mainly because of the way it has altered the labor market. Automation has fast-tracked the way nearly every good is produced, decreasing demand for American industrial workers, driving down their wages. Conversely, automation has increased demand for corporate employees with backgrounds in finance, business administration, software development, and many other fields that require higher education. These white collar workers are essential to business management, and their employers are willing to pay them higher wages. These natural consequences of the free market are only going to intensify in the face of artificial intelligence, which threatens even office jobs. According to the Brookings Institution, other jobs that are at high risk of being replaced are food service, transportation, and construction. What then would happen to the labor market? Who would be earning income? In her recent Harper’s Magazine article “Is Poverty Necessary?,” author Marianne Robinson explained, “Assuming a largely wageless workforce would produce spectacular wealth, whose wealth would it be? … the owners of these workerless factories and their investors.” This is capitalism at its finest, all

thanks to the magic of the free market. The seemingly quickest and most tangible solution to economic inequality─ and its ill effects─ is highly debated: raising the minimum wage. This solution has many potential risks, including unemployment and inflation. Furthermore, if employees are earning more and inflation increases, what is stopping CEOs’ salaries from multiplying? Could increasing the minimum wage facilitate even more inequality? If so, this solution would be the Bandaid on a gaping wound. We cannot simply raise wages without addressing the root cause of inequality: the free market. However, increasing the minimum wage alongside a broader suite of policy changes is likely to prove extremely fruitful. These policy changes must be much more socialist than conservative. Socialism, as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica, is “public control of resources… [aimed at] achieving true freedom and true equality.” Completely eliminating the free market would be detrimental not only to our standard of living, but also the U.S.’s position as a major economic player. Socialism is a promising way to mitigate some of the negative effects of the free market. Though very many Americans are averse to socialism, it already subtly exists in our daily lives in the form of public education, transportation, parks, and infrastructure. Integrating more elements of socialism could promise greater socioeconomic freedom for many Americans. Changing the tax system in favor of small businesses is one key way policymakers can combat the negative effects of the free market. As also mentioned in June’s debates, many large

National

Small businesses lack the capacity to support large-scale automation.

corporations are paying zero in tax dollars. Allowing large companies to expand exponentially only expedites the impacts of automation, because they have the ability to implement automation on a massive scale, let alone the resources to develop it. Furthermore, owners of conglomerates, such as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, amass massive sums of wealth, contributing to the inequalities we are seeing today. The mere fact that these individuals can amass so much wealth, while millions of Americans struggle to put food on their tables, raises many ethical questions.

way we could do that is by supporting local businesses rather than multinational corporations. Unlike large corporations, small businesses lack the capacity to support large-scale automation. Instead, they rely on the artisan skills of their employees, which would increase the value of labor, and consequently, wages. Small businesses also foster job creation and a sustainable supply chain, which are essential in the face of automation, population growth, and effects of climate change. To support these small businesses, the government could offer tax breaks and invest in startups.

So what can policymakers do to change the influence of large corporations? A pure socialist would want total government control over these companies. Many left-wing politicians, such as Warren, argue in favor of such extreme change. Forcibly breaking up large companies seems like a violation of property rights... and an inevitable trip to the Supreme Court. A more constitutional way to break up big companies would be to shape tax policy in a way that encourages conglomerates to break up on their own terms. The first step is to cap deductions and increase their taxes. Only then can we offer tax cuts to companies who are willing to break up into their subsidiaries, a more constitutional solution that could curb the momentum and threat of automation.

We as citizens can help as well, by making a conscious decision to shop local, rather than stopping into the nearest Target or Walmart. The local businesses are there, but exist in the shadows of big-box stores. Though not economically feasible for lower-income Americans, those who can shop local should. We as citizens must also must protest the political influence of large corporations, whose lobbying efforts impact policy decisions. The Center for Responsive Politics reported that lobbying expenditures totaled $3.4 billion in 2018. These sums too often incentivize politicians to act in favor of big business rather than the average everyday American. Unless we see major changes to our democratic system, there will be no reprieve from the effects of large corporations anytime soon.

Breaking up large corporations would not entirely stop the threat of automation, which could be a good thing. We have to remain competitive on a global economic scale, and swearing off automation would forfeit our current advantage. However, we must find a way to balance economic growth with higher quality living standards for low-income Americans. One

In the meantime, the government could make greater strides towards a more comprehensive welfare system. Even if we tax big business and support small business, there are still millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. To improve their standard of living, we must improve our approach to healthcare, social security, and education, issues too complex to

completely dissect. However, considering how many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, our government could be doing much more to preserve citizens’ livelihoods. Would these policy changes be much costlier to the average taxpayer? Not necessarily, as long as the government allocates its revenue beneficially and strategically. The free market has gotten us to this point, but where it takes us next could make the majority of Americans much worse off. The government must intervene when the free market fails its citizens, and our free market is certainly failing many Americans today. That means our policymakers must overhaul our welfare system and act in favor of small businesses. With necessary reforms, maybe, just maybe, our economy actually could work for everyone.

Caroline Foshee ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at caroline.foshee@wustl.edu.

WU Political Review

Extreme Nationalism on the Rise in China Yiran Cheng Artwork (right) by Leslie Liu, Assistant Design Director

ven though President Xi Jinping has enacted a series of expansionary and radical policies, the majority of the Chinese people have steered clear of extreme nationalism and Chauvinism for most of his reign. That, however, is about to change. Extreme nationalism is a dominant sentiment in China, which takes form in feelings of cultural superiority, expansionary sentiments, rejection of Western influence, and unhealthy support for a trigger-happy military. Extreme nationalism manifested rather early in Chinese society and reached its height during Qing Dynasty (the last monarchy of China), during which the Chinese people deemed themselves the center of the world, believed that the country produces everything they would possibly need, and saw all other cultures as inferior and unworthy. Consequently, the Qing Dynasty became the first and only country to declare war on every other country on earth. The Chinese Communist Party also adopted similar narrative in Chinese history textbooks, boasting that “China is the only country in the world to have an uninterrupted 5000-year culture.” However, in recent years, the Chinese people have had an uneasy relationship with extreme nationalism. The most recent spike of this sentiment goes back to 2011-2012, during a sovereignty dispute with Japan over the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands. Protests broke out all over China against Japan, many of which escalated into riots. The rioters vandalized many Western and Japan businesses, including local businesses that appeared to be so. Japanese cars would also be smashed since buying Japanese cars is considered an act of treason. It is only a matter of time before people were hurt in this frenzy of violence. Finally, on September 15th, 2012, the rioters in Xi’an beat a man to death for owning a Japanese car. The public was shocked by this extreme case of violence against their fellow countryman, and quickly formed a consensus that extreme nationalism should be avoided in

Within this cloud of rashness, confusion, and agitation caused by the trade war, the root of extreme nationalism quietly creeps. the future, and rationalism should become the new norm. Surprisingly, this call for de-radicalization worked miracles. Never has the Chinese general public been nearly as nationalistic. Even when the United States started installing THAAD (the most advanced missile-interception system currently available to the US military) in South Korea, the public remained non-violent and rational despite being extremely agitated. But now, Trump’s trade war is very likely to change that. Trump framed this trade war as a rightful retaliation against China’s constant violation of WTO agreement, such as a lack of protection of intellectual property and unfair competition by state-owned enterprises. Whether or not this trade war makes economic sense, it is true that these aforementioned infringements on China’s part are real, thereby giving a certain level of justification for Trump’s actions. Unsurprisingly, this narrative is twisted by the Chinese national media. The Communist Party painted this trade war as an uncalled-for attempt to blockade China’s trade and totally destroy China’s economy—another evil scheme of the United States to destroy the sole hope for communism. With this kind of narrative, few would look at the situation of this trade war

rationally. Within this cloud of rashness, confusion, and agitation caused by the trade war, the root of extreme nationalism quietly creeps. To further complicate the situation, Xi seeks to capitalize on this sentiment. On May 13th, Xinwen Lianbo (China’s most prominent daily news program) issued a national address calling upon all citizens to prepare for “war.” The address stressed national pride and China’s long history, to further spark extreme nationalism within the population. This address gained overwhelming support among the Chinese people, further indicating the possible rise of extreme nationalism. This is the most dangerous political development. Extreme nationalism could only play a limited role in China under the dovish rule of Xi’s predecessors Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. Yet it might not be so harmless under the aggressive Xi administration. While it is true that an authoritarian leader does not need the support of the population, such a leader can only be even more dangerous when his agenda is supported by the majority of the population. For example, Chinese government’s budget for maintaining domestic stability dwarfs even that of military spending, and a united and supportive citizen body will undoubtedly free part of this budget to be used in other governmental activities. With the people’s support, Xi could also impose more drastic measures toward groups such as his political naysayers, LGBTQ groups, and ethnic minorities without getting much backlash, exacerbating China’s human rights problems. So, inadvertently, Trump’s trade war might have triggered a darker, hidden side of Chinese national mentality. His plan to impair the Chinese economy comes at a cost of gifting Xi the opportunity to rally the entire population behind him. And with that kind of support, China might just fight the US to the bitter end. Yiran Cheng ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at yirancheng@wustl.edu.

International

back cover: maggie haberman promo