Refresh by Washington University Political Review

WUPR Washington University Political Review

REFRESH

34.3 APRIL 2021 WUPR.ORG

Table of Contents 6

Refresh Redistricting Fight in St. Louis City Emily Woodruff Theme Art Nisha Mani Prosecutorial Reform: An Alternative to Defunding Julia Cleary The Collapse of a Society Christian Monzón

Do Socialists Really Control America? Jaden Lanza

Protect the Vulnerable Mina Sarcevic

No Way Out: COVID in Detention Facilities Shonali Palacios

Don't Forget about Romney's Child Allowance Charlotte Kramon

Ending Homelessness is a Moral Imperative Ranen Miao

Challenges of a Changing Society Julian McCall

National Art Rachel Olick-Gibson

Reimagining 'Hard Work' in St. Louis Aidan Smyth

Biden's Surprise: Welfare Expansion Rishi Samarth

Theme Art Carlos Cepeda

National Why We Need to Raise the Minimum Wage Matthew Shepetin

International Lava Jato Gets Washed, Lula Eyes 2022 Run Will Pease

1936 is Calling: Boycott the 2022 Olympics Eli Nirenberg

Justice Illuminated? Cameras in the Court Elijah Wiesman

Editors' Note Executive Directors Christian Monzón Megan Orlanski Editors-in-Chief Jon Niewijk Rohan Palacios Design Director Catherine Ju Design Leads Haejin An Leslie Liu Shonali Palacios Jinny Park Staff Editors Claudia Bermudez Jaden Lanza Rachel Olick-Gibson Features Editors Nick Massenburg Gabriela Senno Programming Director Mina Sarcevic Treasurers Malar Muthukumar Natalia Rodriguez Web Editors Adler Bowman Alex Brown Yanny Liang Social Media Editor Alaina Baumohl Front Cover Eric Kim Theme Spread Eric Kim Back Cover Shonali Palacios

Dear Reader, Spring is here! So are vaccines, and with them a sense of impending normalcy (we hope). In this spirit, we are thrilled to bring you our first print magazine of the school year. Although being fully online allowed us to add new writers, new content, and new platforms, we are still most happy when we have a physical issue for you to hold. WUPR writers and designers filled these pages with thoughtful, creative work that captures some of the optimism many of us are feeling. Reflecting the creative thinking that characterizes our magazine, writers interpreted our theme in a variety of unexpected ways. Emily Woodruff and Aidan Smyth each take a look at how different political, social, and even commercial forces shape, and will continue to shape, the city that we all call home. Arguing that refreshment of conventional policymaking wisdom is underway, Rishi Samarth writes that President Biden is overseeing the most ambitious economic agenda since the Reagan era. As always, writers submitted pieces about various national and international issues. Charlotte Kramoon provides a comparative analysis of Senator Mitt Romney’s child allowance plan, arguably the most significant anti-poverty proposal in decades. In a more conceptual piece, Julian McCall explores how cultural and economic change often result in feelings of profound alienation, and wonders what implications that might have for the future of American social life. Looking abroad, Will Pease examines what former Brazillian President Lula da Silva’s acquittal means for a country currently engulfed in an escalating coronavirus crisis. These articles and many more showcase what our brilliant contributors have been thinking about. We hope this issue helps you consider some familiar ideas in new ways, and inspires you to inject fresh experiences, conversations, and ideas into your life. Warmly, Jon Niewijk & Rohan Palacios Editors-in-Chief

Redistricting Fight in St. Louis City Emily Woodruff, Staff Writer

he pandemic was not the only reason 2020 was an important year. There were many impactful political events that occurred throughout the year. However, one event was involved in creating the cornerstone of our very democracy yet receives minimal press coverage: The census. Conducted every 10 years, it is used to help redraw the districts for the House of Representatives as well as districts closer to home. On April 6, thousands of St. Louisans will go to the polls to vote on a new mayor, alderpersons, board of education, an unopposed Comptroller and several propositions. But this election will be memorable for an important reason, as it is the first election where St. Louisans will be using a nonpartisan approval voting system. While this is a momentous event, there are several other potential conflicts brewing in St. Louis politics, especially one related to redistricting. The St. Louis City-County divide is confusing enough, but it gets even more complicated when you dive deeper into the structure of the St. Louis City government. Although there are many offices in the St. Louis City government, I am going to focus on the Board of Alderman. The current structure for the Board of Alderman is 28 alderpersons and one president; but that is changing. In 2012, St. Louisans approved Proposition R, which requires the Board of Alderman to reduce their size by half after the next census. This would mean that there would be 14 alderpersons. While the new districts will go into effect for the 2023 elections, the Board of Aldermen have already started fighting downsizing. On January 15, 2021 the St. Louis Board of Alderman voted 15-13 in an effort to squash any chance of the public voting on redistricting. Even though the public previously approved a measure to decrease the number board members, they refuse to acquiesce. In January of 2021

WU Political Review

The new districts will go into effect for the 2023 elections, but the Board of Aldermen do not plan on going down without a fight. ,Mayor Lyda Krewson “vetoed a bill that would have asked residents to vote on the issue again in April”. This veto means that the redistricting should be proceeding according to schedule. But are the alderpersons really done pushing back? Most likely not. But there is some hope. One group does not intend to let the alderpersons actions go unnoticed. The Reform St. Louis Coalition, which was organized by the Show Me Integrity group, one of the groups who aided the passage of Proposition D (making mayoral elections in St. Louis City non-partisan approval voting) is countering the alderperson’s attempts with their own proposition. For further reference, Show Me Integrity defines themselves as “a cross-partisan movement for more effective ethical government of, by, and for the people”. Their mission includes “building a strong coalition all across the state to put power back into the hands of the people.” They “believe in putting Missourians before big donors, lobbyists, and partisan politics by banning dark money, reforming elections, and ending partisan games, to give power back where it belongs—to regular people, like you and me.” Currently, they are working to gather signatures to put a proposition on the November ballot which takes the redistricting power away from the alderpersons and assigns it to an independent commission of citizens. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, this proposition would also push back the deadline for redistricting to May of next year.

The newly suggested proposition also requires that alderpersons with a conflict of interest on legislation refrain from voting instead of simply disclosing a conflict. It also demands that financial disclosure statements be accessible online, changes the name of the city legislative body to the Board of Alderpersons, and prohibits former alderpersons and employees from lobbying the board for a year after their departure from the board. Currently, the Reform St. Louis Coalition needs 30,000 more signatures by June 11 to get on the proposition on the November ballot. Currently, Lewis Reed, president of the Board of Aldermen, claims that a new map could be done before voting in November, even with delays because of COVID-19. “If the board passed new ward boundaries before the election and voters then approved turning over the assignment to a commission, it’s unclear what would happen." The United States Census Bureau estimates that the population of St. Louis City was 300, 576 in 2019. Under current standards, it is 10,734 St. Louis City citizens for every alderperson. The new redistricting standards would change this to 21,469 people for every alderperson, still quite a small number. While it may not be the most immediate issue on the new mayor’s mind, it is not something she will be able to ignore.

Emily Woodruff ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at ewoodruff@wustl. edu.

Artwork by Nisha Mani, Staff Artist

Refresh

Prosecutorial Reform: An Alternative to Defunding Julia Cleary Artwork by Owen Reinhart

n response to a nationwide movement demanding racial justice within law enforcement and legal systems, many states have begun implementing police reform measures. As calls for reform gain more traction, prosecutors are beginning to be implicated. Activists and protestors have called to defund and reform the internal affairs of prosecutor offices. However, the issue is more complicated than defunding. If these offices receive less funding, the problems in the system will only be further perpetuated. The court system is burdened by the quantity of cases it handles. Due to overcrowding in the courts, many defendants are pushed to take plea deals. Less funding will only result in more plea deals and more people forced to take responsibility for crimes without first securing their right to a fair trial. However, just because restricting funding is not the solution to this issue does not mean there isn't one.

Unregulated, opaque prosecutorial power has continuously perpetuated racial inequality in the criminal justice system. To adequately address this issue, the prosecutorial peremptory strike must be removed from the voir dire process by legislative action. Voir dire is the preliminary evaluation of jurors. The process includes asking jurors questions about themselves, their experiences in life and any possible biases

Unregulated, opaque prosecutorial power has continuously perpetuated racial inequality in the criminal justice system. 8

WU Political Review

Less funding will only result in more plea deals and more people forced to take responsibility for crimes without first securing their right to a fair trial.

they may hold. The questions are intended to separate qualified unbiased jurors from the rest of the juror pool. The prosecutorial peremptory strike is a tool used by prosecutors to eliminate a certain number of potential jurors without an explanation. Opposing counsel can object to peremptory strikes if they believe discrimination based on race, sex, or ethnicity has occurred and require a reason from the prosecutor for the juror removal; however, this practice does not often occur. Prosecutors have historically used the strike to create juries that are not representative of the district that the jury pool is from and are often disproportionately white. Unrepresentative juries are more likely to be affected by racial bias that will harm defendants of color’s access to a fair trial with an impartial jury, as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that racial discrimination when assembling a jury is unconstitutional. In Batson v Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on race when assembling a jury deprives the accused of their rights and harms the community, undermining public confidence in the justice system's fairness.

This legal precedent was set in 1968, and yet racial discrimination within the jury selection process persists. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled on Flowers v. Mississippi. In this case, the court considered how Batson had been applied in the Mississippi Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled in a 7-2 decision that the state trial court had committed an egregious error when determining whether the peremptory strike had been used appropriately. The Supreme Court disagreed with a lower court ruling that this particular use of the peremptory strike had not been motivated by discriminatory intent. While the justices were in disagreement about how frequently the peremptory strike is used for racial bias, with Justice Alito writing a concurrence stating the circumstances of the case were unusual, the majority agreed that it had been used in this manner for this case. Flowers v. Mississippi shows how despite the ruling in Batson, the peremptory strike is still used to corrupt the sanctity of the court and perpetuate racial bias in the jury selection process. Additional evidence of this corruption was found by the Equal Justice Initiative in 2010, determining that in some counties, 80% of African

ADD PULL QUOTE ADD PULL QUOTE ADD PULL QUOTE!!!!!!

Americans that qualify for jury duty are struck by prosecutors. The Batson ruling laid the foundation for the removal of racial bias in voir dire by banning race-based jury selections; however, due to the lack of government oversight and enforcement mechanisms for SCOTUS rulings, prosecutors can still discriminate. To rectify this issue, the peremptory strike must be abolished entirely. It is clear that regulation of the tool is hard to enforce and inadequate. This is not to say jury strikes in general should be removed from the voir dire selection process. Jury striking is vital,

as some potential jurors have a bias that would affect the case's fairness. However, by eliminating the peremptory strike, the juror strikes will have to be justified. Juror strike explanations will allow the judge to determine if the removal is rational and unimpeded by racial bias.

right to an impartial jury of their peers. Legislative action is required to create substantial change, as the courts have failed to enforce their rulings adequately. Julia Cleary ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at cjulia@wustl.edu.

Current prosecutor offices lack transparency, and their actions, including the use of peremptory strikes, are unregulated and unmonitored. With juror strike explanations required, there will be improved diversity on juries, and black defendants will finally secure their 6th Amendment

Refresh

THE COLLAPSE OF A SOCIETY

Christian Monzón, Executive Director Artwork by Jinny Park, Design Lead Design by Catherine Ju, Design Director [Disclaimer: I do not pretend to be an expert in archaeology, climate science, history, sociology, or any other discipline represented in the following article. Rather, I use my reflections from an archaeology course two years ago on Ancient Mesoamerica with Dr. David Freidel to comment on the imminent international catastrophe of climate change. As society undergoes global trauma because the powerful mistreated our world, looking at our past can help us cope with our present. Remembering the collapse of ancient Mayan society can give us hope, inspire us to create change, and remind us that despite the gravity and irreversibility of our circumstances, we still have plenty to fight for.]

construction project began in a city in the Maya lowlands in Southern Mexico sometime long before Europeans arrived, perhaps to commemorate a local ruler; perhaps a god; or perhaps both, as many ancient Mayan rulers viewed themselves as human manifestations of the divine. Workers on the construction project, people whose names nobody today knows, would begin their hard labor amidst the start of a drought, maybe as their city-state warred with others and certainly during a time of stark inequality and social unrest. They never finished. Today, their construction project lays abandoned and incomplete, as its workers suddenly fled some great

crisis, the collapse of their civilization. Great Mayan city-states like Tikal or Chichen Itza reflected the monumental power of ancient Mesoamerican peoples. Impressive architecture, statues, and other structures define the ruins of the now-abandoned cities. Looking at the cities today, the buildings stand in deafening silence, coexisting with surrounding jungles and seeming like a society trapped in the past. Crumbling stone architecture, abandoned palaces, and vines overtaking the cities could lead contemporary visitors to think that something terrible had happened there. Yet these societies remain very much alive—both in the some six million Mayans still living in Guatemala, Mexico, and elsewhere across the Americas, and in the Maya’s past as a sign for the present. We often view ancient states on two fronts. On one hand, their complex political systems, sophisticated infrastructure, and beautiful buildings amaze us. On another, we view ourselves as superior—the crisis that destroyed the Mayan city-states could never happen to us. Our

WE VIEW OURSELVES AS SUPERIOR—THE CRISIS THAT DESTROYED THE MAYAN CITYSTATES COULD NEVER HAPPEN TO US.

LIKE TODAY, ANCIENT MAYAN ELITES VIEWED THEIR ENVIRONMENT AS EXPENDABLE. technology, our complexity, and our modernity would stop us from meeting the same fate. Even as most of our world understands the existence of the climate crisis, most cannot conceptualize the emergency. Many know that we will soon begin to run out of water, that rising sea levels will eventually destroy coastal cities, and that tropical storms will grow stronger and deadlier with rising temperatures, but we cannot possibly conceive of these scenarios because of their severity. While the collapse of the Mayan city-states is hotly contested, evidence in recent years points more towards an ecological disaster in Southern Mexico in the eighth or ninth centuries. Analysis of sediment from Mayan archaeological sites suggests that severe drought contributed to the depopulation of Mayan cities. Explanations for the drought vary, but most stem from powerful people mismanaging or outright destroying the environment, from overhunting to deforestation to even destruction of the environment via warfare between states. Inter-elite competition increased the exploitation of agricultural systems and facilitated destructive population growth. And according to archaeologist B.L. Turner, the collapse occurred when the Maya had “a sophisticated understanding of their environment, built and sustained intensive production and water systems and withstood at

least two long-term episodes of aridity.” In other words, the Maya were like society today—they understood their environment and the unique ecological problems they faced, yet they continued abusing the natural world until their ecosystem became unsustainable. Like today, ancient Mayan elites viewed their environment as expendable. Competition, expansion, growth, and empire clouded their judgement, as did the unsustainable growth of population centers and absurd belief that humanity could control nature. They knew that their behavior hurt the environment, but like modern climate change, the impending desolation of their world seemed inconceivable. And if the powerful of today’s world continue to support fossil fuels, deforestation, and the illusion that somehow, they will outlast nature, our world will meet the same fate as theirs. It seems not just probable, but inevitable. But not all hope is lost. One crucial caveat of the story of the Maya is that while the Maya collapsed, the Mayan people survived. Though far shy of the estimated 19 million that lived in the ancient Mayan cities, today’s millions of Mayans survived the collapse of their civilization, then colonialism, and even attempted genocide in the 20th century. This can give us hope that we might survive our planet’s imminent destruction. Our potential survival should invigorate us—for as long as we can hope that some small sect of humanity will survive the crisis, the world is worth protecting. The world is worth fighting for. Christian Monzón ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at christian.monzon@ wustl.edu.

Reimagining ‘Hard Work’ in St. Louis Aidan Smyth

e’re working in St. Louis, but not all that hard,” Joe Holleman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote on February 22 in an article entitled “St. Louis in lower half of ‘hardest-working’ cities.” Holleman’s article was in response to personal finance company WalletHub publishing their annual list of the “hardest-working cities in America,” with St. Louis coming in at number 65 out of the 116 cities included in the report. As Holleman noted, this marks an improvement over the city’s 2020 spot at number 76 and its 2019 spot at number 80. To determine how hard a city works, WalletHub uses a combination of ‘Direct Work Factors,’ such as the employment rate and average workweek hours, and ‘Indirect Work Factors,’ including average commute time and average leisure time spent per day. ‘Direct Work Factors’ are weighted more heavily than ‘Indirect Work Factors,’ and each city is given a score out of 100. The report is unclear as to whether more hours of leisure time spent per day would count against or in favor of a city, but it is clear that a higher number of hours worked per week gives cities a bump in the rankings.

St. Louis ranked 71st in ‘Direct Work Factors,’ suggesting that St. Louisans work relatively fewer hours per week, experience a lower employment rate, and have a higher unemployment rate of youth aged 16-24 who are not in school than other cities in the United States. On the other hand, St. Louis ranked 21st in ‘Indirect Work Factors,’ suggesting that a relatively higher number of St. Louisans work multiple jobs to make ends meet but also spend more hours volunteering than other cities. What WalletHub lauds as signs of ‘hard work’ are, in reality, indicators of the gross exploitation of workers in a highly rapacious economy. The framing of the report and the list glorifies workers in cities working extremely long hours per week, leaving vacation time unused, and holding

WU Political Review

What WalletHub lauds as signs of ‘hard work’ are, in reality, indicators of the gross exploitation of workers in a highly rapacious economy. multiple jobs. Such a framing is reprehensible. Not only should workers in the United States not have to work more hours than workers in other comparably developed countries—on average, workers in the U.S. worked 1,779 hours in 2019 while workers in the UK worked 1,538 hours, and workers in Germany worked 1,386 hours—but workers should never have to hold two jobs in order to survive. WalletHub’s rankings valorize and legitamize sadistic labor practices that set the U.S. apart from the rest of the developed world in the worst way possible. Instead of scolding St. Louisans for not working enough hours per week or celebrating the fact that many work multiple jobs, as WalletHub and Joe Holleman of the Post-Dispatch implicitly do, the focus should be on the decades of policies, especially city planning policies, that have ravaged the working and minority communities of St. Louis, with Black workers in particular facing the brunt of the blows. Following the second World War, St. Louis embraced a ‘suburban logic’ of city planning; city planners sought to construct a central city that would predominantly serve the needs of the increasingly prominent suburbs. Urban renewal was the tool by which planners accomplished their goals of redefining the meaning and purpose of modern cities, as city planners and officials razed areas of the city that they considered to be ‘blighted,’ ostensibly using the cleared land to further reindustrialization

efforts, provide better housing, and rejuvenate the economy of the city. Indeed, urban renewal was happening all across the country as cities attempted to reimagine themselves in an age of white flight, suburbanization, and the loss of inner-city jobs to the suburbs or to foreign countries. Predictably, urban renewal and the suburban logic of city planning had the direst consequences for St. Louis’s working class and Black populations. At the core of the suburban logic of postwar city planning was an effort to rework the economy of the metropolitan region, manipulating the innercity’s structure to serve the interests of largely wealthy and white suburbanites. As historians Joseph Heathcott and Máire Agnes Murphy explain, the ‘metropolitan’ focus of St. Louis city planners was not “an inclusive and even scale for investment but rather [was] a nodal system that channeled resources in ways that linked the new downtown with the sprawling suburban residential, office, and industrial tracts, ultimately bypassing the old urban core.” Facing industrial decline in the inner-city, planners in St. Louis generally began to favor strategies to bolster high-tech R&D and the entertainment-tourism industry downtown, sidelining efforts to revitalize the city’s old manufacturing base. In other words, as the old manufacturing core of St. Louis fell into precipitous decline, planners shifted their attention to developing a city to cater to the needs of suburban, affluent whites instead of attempting to address the issues that would come to define the struggles of St. Louis’s largely Black inner-city population. Highways connecting the suburbs to the downtown business district are the most potent example of the physical impacts of the suburban logic of postwar city planning. I-64, linking Clayton and other suburbs of St. Louis to the city’s downtown was made possible by the deliberate destruction of over 450 acres of buildings in the predominantly Black community of Mill Creek Valley. Over 20,000 St. Louisans

were displaced as a result of the planned demolition, 95% of whom were Black. Though they were promised compensation with adequate housing in exchange for the obliteration of their community, fewer than 20% were housed in the massive Pruitt-Igoe housing complex that was developed in the city in the late 1950s, and most of them ended up in substandard housing on the city’s North side. Today, the scars of urban renewal and suburban-focused city planning are clear. In St. Louis County are three of the nation’s 25 wealthiest suburbs; in St. Louis City, one in every five residents lives in poverty. Nearly two out of every five children in the city live in poverty. The destitution north of Delmar Boulevard provides a chilling contrast to the over-the-top mansions of the city’s Central West End. As historian Walter Johnson notes, “significant differences in virtually any marker of social well-being in the city of St. Louis” can be charted along Delmar Boulevard. Meanwhile, in the area formerly known as the Mill Creek Valley, over 30% of the area’s Black inhabitants live in poverty, a disproportionate rate compared to the already astronomical rates of poverty the city as a whole experiences.

In the context of an economic system that has left entire communities behind by design, how can anyone conscientiously make the claim that any group of people is not working hard enough?

The focus should be on the decades of policies that have ravaged the working community in St. Louis, with black workers in particular facing the brunt of the blows. Given St. Louis’s record of literally destroying the physical and economic foundations of Black and working class communities, to write that “we’re working in St. Louis, but not all that hard,” or to publish a list of the hardest-working cities in the country with the sort of asinine criteria that WalletHub employed, is a gross insult to the communities most negatively impacted by the city’s policies. In the context of an economic system that has left entire communities behind by design, how can anyone conscientiously make the claim that any group of people is not working hard enough? And it is important to point out that the suburban logic of city planning and urban renewal have not been unique to St. Louis, but have played out across the country. Instead of chastising any city’s inhabitants for ‘not working hard enough,’ a frustratingly juvenile accusation in the first place, we need to re-evaluate the way that we determine what ‘hard work’ is and what amount of it is actually appropriate for any person.

century. What is widely regarded as the first general strike in the United States took place in St. Louis in 1877. Newspapers at the time referred to the events as the ‘St. Louis Commune.’ In 1933, hundreds of Black women walked off their jobs at the Funsten Nut Company, demanding a living wage. Their efforts shut down Funsten’s plants throughout the city and resulted in a doubling of their wages by management. In the 1960s, activists such as Ivory Perry and Percy Green of ACTION were at the forefront of guerilla activism in St. Louis. Green and fellow activist Richard Daly climbed the then-incomplete Gateway Arch to protest the lack of jobs given to Black construction workers by the company building the Arch. Ivory Perry was outspoken against the urban renewal projects that St. Louis enthusiastically undertook, blasting such projects as “negro removal by white approval.” He “served as a one-man strike force during the later 1960s in St. Louis, whether he was chaining himself to doors in support of the protests or simply walking out into the street, lying down, and stopping traffic.” His and ACTION’s strategies informed the resistance of Black Lives Matter, a movement that gained significant traction following the 2014 murder of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. This is the sort of tradition of hard work that goes unappreciated and undiscussed but should instead be front and center when considering the character of work in America. It is the people protesting against oppression and exploitation, against the very conditions that WalletHub celebrates, who are in fact working the hardest. Aidan Smyth '23 studies in the College of Arts &

Yet in the face of oppressive economic, political, and spatial regimes, the city of St. Louis has been the site of incredible political and social activism throughout its history, a form of hard work that is unsurprisingly ignored in mainstream discussions about the American work ethic. In fact, St. Louisans have been fighting against such a perverted conception of hard work since the 19th

Sciences. He can be reached at a.smyth@wustl.edu.

Refresh

Biden's Surprise: Welfare Expansion Rishi Samarth

resident’s Biden’s first legislative victory was the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, a $1.9 trillion relief bill aimed at targeting the COVID-19 pandemic. The main components of the bill are $1,400 stimulus checks, extended unemployment, $10 billion for vaccine distribution, and $350 billion to bail out state and local governments, along with other spending aimed at keeping the economy afloat. However, the relief package also includes the largest expansion of the welfare state in a decade, including a generous child tax credit and the biggest healthcare expansion since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. President Biden, along with fellow Democrats in Congress, touted the relief bill’s plan to “cut child poverty in half.” This tax credit would give families with children under age six $4,000 a year and families with children under age 17 $3,600 a year, split up monthly. This ambitious expansion of the tax credit is one of the centerpieces of Biden’s economic plan, as he plans to make this tax credit permanent with further legislation. Unlike the Obama and Clinton administrations, who balanced economic spending with managing the national debt, Biden seems to want the government to play a bigger role in American’s lives than it has in a while. Some have compared Biden’s economic agenda with that of President Lyndon B. Johnson, whose Great Society programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have helped millions of lower-income Americans.

Surprisingly, the American Rescue Plan also includes the largest expansion of healthcare since the Affordable Care Act. The ARP includes expanded federal subsidies for those buying health insurance on the health insurances exchanges established with the ACA. Now, those making 150% over the Federal Poverty Line qualify for silver plans with zero premiums. The plan also cuts subsidies in half for those making between 200 and 300% of the Federal Poverty Line. These subsidies will help to insure

WU Political Review

The COVID relief bill also includes the largest expansion of the welfare state in a decade, including a generous child tax credit and the biggest healthcare expansion since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. millions of more Americans. Biden’s healthcare agenda does not end here. In his upcoming infrastructure package, he plans to include federal government oversight on drug prices and make his ACA subsidies permanent. Unlike Obama’s strategy of introducing one large healthcare bill like the Affordable Care Act, Biden is attempting a piecemeal strategy, breaking his healthcare legislation up throughout multiple bills. The ACA cost Democrats control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections as Republicans ran heavily against a “big socialist bill,” losing 60 seats in the House. The Democratic party is avoiding the framing of one scary healthcare bill that changes too much in order to maintain the positive public opinion of their agenda heading into the 2022 midterm elections. Neither Clinton nor Obama engaged in this level of government investment of society, and it will be interesting to see whether future politicians from either party continue or end this investment. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama became presidents in uniquely distinct time periods from Biden when the government was seen to have a different role. Bill Clinton was elected after three

consecutive landslide losses of Democratic presidential candidates. He ran to the right of Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter and advocated for a smaller role in government than previous Democrats as the Reagan Era had made lower taxes popular in American society. As such, no major expansions of welfare could happen under the political circumstances. Obama was elected to fix the Great Recession and did so with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an $800 billion stimulus bill. However, despite Democrats having control of the House of Representatives and having a 59 seat Senate majority in 2009, conservative Democrats from traditionally Republican areas helped to neuter Obama’s economic agenda. Conservative Senate Democrats removed the public option from the ACA and demanded a provision to cut Medicaid Spending in times of high government spending (PAYGO). The Democratic Party has lost these members due to changing electoral coalitions and now has the votes to enact more expansive legislation. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought more awareness to economic and social inequalities and has made it more popular for government investment to be accepted by the public. The American Rescue Plan has a 70% approval rating and Biden’s infrastructure proposal has a 60% approval rating. No longer is the deficit and the national debt a major talking point among voters. This may be seen as a turning point in terms of policy, or a blip in history. Only time will tell. Rishi Samarth ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at email@wustl.edu.

Artwork by Carlos Cepeda

Refresh

Social distancing doesn't mean we're not ad connected. WUPR invites you to write or illustrate in our next issue. To get involved visit wupr.org/contribute

WU Political Review

Why We Need to Raise the Minimum Wage Matthew Shepetin

he minimum wage has been at the heart of many economic debates in the past several years. Just recently, though, with President Biden's proposal to more than double the current federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, the debate of whether the government should increase the minimum wage has been brought back to the forefront. Although the Biden Administration failed to pass the $15 minimum wage legislation through the 2021 COVID19 relief bill, it’s still a topic worth discussing. In this article, I will address some of the popular arguments against the minimum wage made by the opposition.

A survey conducted by the Federal Reserve found that almost 40% of Americans cannot afford a surprise expense of $400 expense out of pocket. of living.

Not everyone on minimum wage in America needs to be making $15/hour. Sometimes housing prices and the cost of living in certain parts of the country do not justify that amount. A survey conducted by the Federal Reserve found that almost 40% of Americans cannot afford a surprise $400 expense out of pocket. That means that about 130 million citizens of one of the richest countries in the world cannot afford things like surprise car troubles, medical expenses, or home repairs. Based on the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) calculation, the average person in America would need to make $31,200 annually to achieve a “modest but adequate standard of living.” Someone working on $15 an hour would make an average of $30,600. Even in states with seemingly low housing and living costs, an increase in the minimum wage is necessary. For example, a single adult living in rural Missouri will have to be making $39,800 annually or $19 an hour to keep up with food, rent, and other basic costs of living. Not to mention, in large, expensive cities, the EPI expects that a single adult with no children will need to be making at least $28.70 an hour in New York, $24.06 In LA and $23.94 in Washington D.C. by 2025 in order to keep up with the increased costs of living. Even in less expensive southern cities like Fort Worth, Phoenix, and Miami, a $15 minimum wage would not cover the high cost

Raising the minimum wage would incentivize small businesses to lay off workers. Actually, a growing number of small businesses have begun to support the minimum wage hike. Across the country, business organizations, including Business for a Fair Minimum Wage and the American Sustainable Business Council, which represent thousands of small businesses, have come out in support of the $15 minimum wage. There is also evidence that the minimum wage has less of an effect on employment than we think. Research from the Center for Economic and Policy Research suggests higher wages have no discernible effect on employment. Rather than laying off workers, businesses tend to organize the work process or see their profits fall in order to adjust to new wages. In fact, after San Francisco raised its tipped minimum wage to $12.25 an hour in 2013, the city saw growth in the leisure and hospitality industry the following year. Additionally, there is strong evidence to suggest that as wages increase, employers tend to see lower rates of staff turnover and harder, more efficient work from employees. These two facts can eliminate costs for businesses and even compensate for higher wages. Additionally, there is evidence that an increase in the minimum wage supports economic growth. According to the Economic Policy Institute, a $15

minimum wage would result in $107 billion a year in higher wages. This means that more people would have more money to circulate through the economy. The minimum wage is meant for teenagers with after-school and summer jobs, not for adult workers. Hence, the $15 minimum wage would target the wrong demographic. Gradually increasing the minimum wage would increase pay for 32 million American workers. That's 21% of the workforce. The EPI also estimates that 88% of workers who would benefit from a wage hike are at least 20 years old. So yes, a $15 minimum wage would increase the pay of high schoolers working summer jobs, but the vast majority of the recipients would be adults working to cover all of their expenses and costs of living. Additionally, a disproportionate number of minimum wage workers across the country are Black and Hispanic/Latino. A pay increase would serve to reduce the pay and wealth gap along gender and racial lines. According to the National Employment Law Project, as much as 31% of African Americans and 26% of Latinos would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Tightening this gap would aid in reducing the inequality running rampant throughout our country. Increasing pay for marginalized groups would also aid in spurring increased economic activity in historically marginalized areas of the country. Because many minimum wage workers tend to spend money within their communities, increasing their disposable income would bring heightened economic activity and job growth in these areas. Matthew Shepetin ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at m.r.shepetin@ wustl.edu.

National

WU Political Review

Do Socialists Really Control America? Jaden Lanza, Staff Editor "Pierced by pangs on pangs on pangs" (artwork) by Natalie Snyder, Staff Artist

merica is being taken over by socialists. Actually, socialism is only in China and Cuba—or wait, is it Denmark and Sweden? Oh actually, China doesn’t have “real” socialism, it’s state capitalism. Many incoherent understandings of socialism like these are too frequently thrown around in public discourse. Some clarification is sorely needed. Particularly in the last decade or so, the word has been used by politicians who identify as democratic socialists, such as Bernie Sanders, but also from critics to describe a large array of political leaders and policies. So, what does the word actually mean? What is its significance? Walter Treat, a Wash U student writing for the Danforth Dispatch, takes a crack at defining and historicizing the concept in an article titled “The Socialists Control America”: "…Karl Marx formulated a description of socialism as a form of social and economic organization where the means of production were to be controlled collectively by the workers, but he also used the terms “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably.… It wasn’t long, however, before people and organizations with less radical ideas began adopting the label. Already by the 1870s (while Marx still lived), reformist parties rejecting the revolutionism of orthodox Marxism had been established in France under the “socialist” label, and by the 1920s, many countries had “socialist” parties that either rejected overthrowing capitalism altogether or only accepted the premise in theory." While I would quibble over some details, I think this is a fairly even-handed account of socialism’s history as a concept. “Socialism” is a broad leftwing political tradition with a plethora of different interpretations. Although socialism and communism are distinct but related ideas, Treat is correct that there are both revolutionary and

How on earth did we get to the point where the government increasing spending makes it socialist? “reformist” styles of socialism, but also libertarian and authoritarian interpretations. Treat points out that the word has indeed been used by “communists, reformists, progressives, liberals—and even the far right” such as the Nazis in Germany. This leads him to conclude that “socialism” is so convoluted as to be obsolete. Treat then continues: "So, when a Republican like Rick Perry calls Obama socialist for increasing government spending, or a Democrat like Bernie Sanders runs on a platform of taxing billionaires and then applies the label to himself, or even when someone says that the GOP is socialist for boosting defense and agricultural budgets— it’s hard to say that they’re wrong. Those really are, at least in a loose sense, somewhat collectivist economic projects, and they fit the definition that’s been used for the term’s entire history. So, in the end, who is a socialist? Marx. Stalin. Hitler. Obama. Trump. Everyone’s a socialist, except maybe Max Stirner and a few really committed libertarian guys." Where he runs into trouble is his argument that because socialism has historically varied in its usage, anyone and everyone can be a socialist. Suddenly, any policies that seem vaguely "collectivist" or have the government doing stuff become "socialist”. It is this paragraph that is most baffling. In Treat’s (accurate) exegesis of 19th century socialist thought, the word “collectivist” isn’t used, but is inserted in his later analysis. This is a poignant point of contention because it’s the

special word that glues together the argument justifying socialism’s dismissal from our lexicon. It allows you to go, “Socialism is an ideology where you do stuff collectively, and Nazism was also doing collective stuff so it’s either all meaningless or perhaps they’re the same thing!” Let’s return to the real definition of socialism, albeit briefly and incompletely. Almost as soon as capitalism emerged, philosophers began critiquing it for its propensity to create inequality and exploit workers. Socialism was an idea that the means of production should be reorganized and socially owned by workers themselves. It’s true that what modern democratic socialists (or whatever you want to call them) want is a little less totalizing; what the two styles of socialism have in common is the critique of capitalism, the desire for greater economic freedom, and reducing war, poverty, and inequality generally. Democratic socialist parties participate in elections and seek to take over the current government and use it to allocate resources for the benefit of workers. Based on his summary, I think Treat understands all of this! Which makes it all the more perplexing that he then makes an enormous leap when he says that Obama, Trump or really anyone can be considered a socialist. Sure, socialism is pretty heterodox with differences over the question of the state and revolution, but socialism nonetheless has stark, oppositional philosophical and political differences with liberalism and conservatism. How on earth did we get to the point where the government increasing spending makes it socialist? I somewhat blame the Reagan-era turn in politics that capitalized on earlier Red Scares that demonized socialism. The neoliberal turn in world history villainized the very idea of the government doing anything that didn’t facilitate free markets, maintain security, or wage wars. The supposed failures of Lyndon Johnson’s welfare state programs, the idea that “big government” is always inefficient

Refresh

and totalitarian, and the powerful American taboos against anything remotely associated with communism all convinced people that the government doing stuff must automatically be “socialist”—and therefore sinister. “Government” and “socialism” became connected, and in the minds of so many Americans, both connote “bad”. Unfortunately, many self-described democratic socialists have contributed to the distortion of the word. Politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have generated their own somewhat goalpost-shifting definitions of socialism that include capitalist countries in Europe, but excludes countries run by socialist parties in the Global South. Regardless of the oft frustrating debates over how “socialist” the Nordic Countries are, it is nowhere on the level of the mistake it is to call Presidents Biden, Trump, or Obama socialists. In the past, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez correctly noted that in another country, herself and Joe Biden would not have been in the same political party. Why? Because her political beliefs (particularly the economic ones) are quite different from the liberal policies that undergird the mainstream party positions. Furthermore, what both major American political parties have in common is a strong support for capitalism, to which the welfare state is not antithetical.

To make debates more substantive, we need to affirm meaning, not deny its existence. Treat closes out his article with an appeal for substantive debate, and to avoid amorphous language. This extends beyond just the word socialism: “Maybe, instead of worrying about whether to call politicians ‘socialist’ or ‘democratic’ or

20 WU Political Review

This country lives and breathes neoliberalism; to elide this fact is to descend into the same meaninglessness that we ought to avoid. ‘fascist’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or whatever other brand of ideology-babble, we should focus on what meaningful impacts their policies will actually have.” I agree that more focus should be given to the actual consequences of policy, and I appreciate Treat’s desire to elucidate what we really mean when discussing politics. He does point out that there’s many meanings of the word socialism in America today. Those who identify as socialist in the US should be aware of the differences that exist between democratic socialism and other forms of socialism. Regardless of your normative beliefs about these ideologies, the politics of Bernie Sanders is undeniably different from those of, say, communist leader Fidel Castro—the former has dedicated his life to reformism, the latter to revolution. However, does this variation justify calling anyone a socialist? I think doing so only makes discussion more difficult, not less, and has some obvious ulterior motives. Asserting that everyone across nearly the entire political spectrum is socialist is only more confusing and an intellectual disservice. Combatting “meaninglessness” is what Treat wants! Ironically, the butchery of the word socialism is most emblematic in Treat’s own title: “The Socialists Control America”. Well, by our mutually agreed upon understanding of socialism’s history, this isn’t true. This country has been capitalist since its founding—designed to protect property rights for its landowning founders. More recently, the state has undergone even more privatization of governmental processes. This country lives and breathes neoliberalism; to elide this

fact is to descend into the same meaninglessness that we ought to avoid. It’s not lost on me that “socialism” is the word targeted for destruction by Treat, and that the only people that aren’t socialists are Max Stirner and “really committed libertarian guys.” Though he dismisses practically every political ideology as “ideology-babble”, it’s interesting that libertarianism is spared from criticism. To say the obvious, it’s a not-so-subtle lurch of the Overton Window to the right. If Barack Obama is a socialist for giving corporations trillions of dollars—something Republicans also do, by the way—then I give up! Words have no meaning! To make debates more substantive, we need to affirm meaning, not deny its existence. When discussing politicians today, historicizing and contextualizing the terms we use is an absolute necessity. Like every political tradition, “socialism” has its own history and complexity. Discussing socialism and employing the term precisely should happen more, not less. The same goes for any political ideology; words like “fascist” and “liberal” are undoubtedly used far too blithely. What I agree with is that we should not worry so much about labels in public debates and worry a lot more about what we actually mean in politics. That being said, words like socialism, democracy, liberalism, and conservatism all have meaning! All of these concepts are complex, some have certain degrees of overlap, and all of them will evolve in meaning in different contexts and points in time. They, too, are words that are thrown about incoherently in far too much discourse. This should only lead us all to explore political philosophy with more tact and nuance—and remind ourselves to avoid reductionism. Jaden Lanza ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jadenlanza@wustl. edu.

Protect the Vulnerable Mina Sarcevic, Programming Director

t is widely known that nursing homes have not fared well during the pandemic. Data collected by The COVID Tracking Project up to March 4, 2021 show that long-term care facilities account for 34% of COVID-19 deaths in the United States, although these residents constitute less than 1% of the total population. While it may be true that nursing home residents are perhaps more likely to have underlying conditions that make them more susceptible to severe cases of COVID-19, the congregate settings they live in certainly increase the likelihood of viral transmission. Meals are often distributed in common rooms, and residents remaining in their private spaces may still require assistance from staff members who must travel between rooms frequently. These same workers are likely to be in contact with the community outside of the facility; outbreaks are undoubtedly difficult to control given these circumstances. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (C.M.S.), testing for U.S. nursing home staff and residents only became mandatory in late August 2020—five months after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic and two months after the number of confirmed cases reached two million in the United States. As reported by the AARP, there is still an average of 11.1% of nursing homes that have not been supplied with enough personal protective equipment (PPE) over the past month to last a single week. With such a publicly expressed focus on protecting vulnerable populations, it would be reasonable to implement the appropriate measures in long-term care facilities sooner rather than later. The troubling outcomes of the pandemic are not entirely unavoidable. According to a study published in January 2021 (Age & Ageing), nursing homes in Hong Kong quickly adopted strict guidelines whereby infected residents were isolated in specialized hospital wards, and fatalities ultimately remained comparatively low by September 2020. As more information about the status of nursing homes during the pandemic is revealed—notably as the F.B.I. launches an investigation into whether New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

With over a million people living in nursing homes in the U.S., this situation is personal for many. and his aides released false statistics on nursing home deaths—haunting stories are not difficult to find. The issue does not solely stem from the current health crisis, though. A study published in 2016 (Health Services Insights) found that although research has pointed to an association between higher staffing levels and superior outcomes, half of nursing homes had markedly low staffing levels. Some residents require significant and consistent care, making it difficult for a limited number of staff members to appropriately attend to all needs. Even though studies have shown that non-profit nursing homes often provide a better quality of care, many nursing homes are owned by for-profit companies. Staff members are underpaid and overworked, which leads to high turnover rates and overall inadequate staffing in the industry—circumstances with devastating consequences that may have only become more noticeable during the pandemic. According to data released by the AARP in February 2021, 28% of nursing homes experienced a staffing shortage every month since June 2020.

investigation found that residents of five-star nursing homes were about as likely as residents of one-star nursing homes to die of COVID-19. With over a million people living in nursing homes in the U.S., this situation is personal for many. The problem will not dissipate without intervention, and research suggests that the demand for nursing homes will only increase over time. According to data published by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2015, the population of nursing home residents is projected to grow across all age groups by 2050, with the number of residents older than 65 expected to increase by 84%. The pandemic clearly illustrates a long-standing issue: It’s time for a shift in our societal mindset. Protecting the vulnerable not only includes protecting the individuals living in long-term care facilities but relies on providing acceptable conditions that allow nursing home workers to effectively carry out their jobs. This requires effort on a large systemic scale, and it is an unavoidable responsibility that extends far beyond the pandemic: people deserve better.

Mina Sarcevic ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at mina.sarcevic@ wustl.edu.

Moreover, the structural evaluation of nursing homes is not necessarily designed to provide an accurate representation of quality in facilities. Currently, nursing homes in the U.S. function using a five-star rating system implemented in 2008 by the C.M.S. The system theoretically assigns higher quality nursing homes with a higher score, providing a ranking of facilities based on limited information for families to determine where their loved ones will reside. The data used for this is partially self-reported, with the remaining information coming from health inspections. According to an investigation launched by the New York Times, more than 2,400 five-star facilities out of 3,500 in total had abuse or infection control citations. The same

National

NO WAY OUT COVID IN DETENTION FACILITIES

Shonali Palacios Artwork by Eric Kim, Staff Artist Design by Catherine Ju, Design Director

t will likely surprise few that the United States’ incarcerated population has been at the forefront of suffering amidst the pandemic. According to The Marshall Project, as of December 2020 one in five state and federal prisoners had at some point tested positive for COVID-19. At this point in the pandemic, well over 2,000 incarcerated individuals have died. The director of the UCLA COVID-19 Behind Bars project also notes that their data has shown over 81,000 cases among detention staff. There are a plethora of reasons why the virus has swept through the alreadyoverwhelmed American prison and jail system in the devastating way that it has: inability to social distance behind bars, poor ventilation,

communal eating, and inadequate medical care from often underfunded and understaffed of incarceration facilities, are just a few. Whatever the reasons, the end effect has been disastrous for the incarcerated population and correctional staff alike, who face heightened risk of infection countrywide. Some states, including California, opted to begin efforts to decarcerate during the pandemic, a method of prevention that has had demonstrable positive outcomes throughout the country. Whether or not facilities have actually chosen to take this approach varies across states. The lack of adequate protections has not gone unnoticed by detainees. In February of 2021, inmates at the City Justice Center (a St. Louis jail) revolted in a third protest against COVID-19 protocols and conditions. Activists say these individuals were demanding PPE, better heating, and improved clothing, among other requests, though this is disputed by some public safety officials. According to the Washington Post, a hotline set up by legal advocacy group ArchCity Defenders received calls prior to the conflict complaining about lack of isolation for prisoners who had tested positiv. In the end, more than 100 inmates were involved in the disturbance and controlled parts of the facility for around six hours. UCLA law professor Sharon Dolovich told the Post, "That people in custody feel driven to this kind of response is a measure of the failure of various political institutions and the courts... to adequately respond to this virus." As we begin to see the first glimpses of light at the end of the tunnel for the COVID-19 pandemic, we must accept the shameful but undeniable truth that in many ways, across many states and many cities, officials have failed to adequately protect some of the most vulnerable members of society who were placed in their care, as well as their own correctional staff. In the coming months, as the vaccine rollout continues, some facilities run the risk of repeating that failure. The CDC recommends that, due to their status as essential workers and the high-risk environments in which they work, correctional and detention facility staff should be vaccinated in early stages of rollout programs. They further recommend that incarcerated or detained persons should be vaccinated concurrently with staff (CDC). As of now, the federal bureau of prisons appears to be following the

ACCORDING TO THE MARSHALL PROJECT, AS OF DECEMBER 2020 ONE IN FIVE STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS HAD AT SOME POINT TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID-19. CDC recommendations. But for state prisons, as well as local jails and detention centers, different jurisdictions will have to eke out their own action plans. Additionally, according to the Marshall project, as of March 2 only nine states "explicitly included" the incarcerated in their phase one procedures. A further eighteen have them placed in phase two. This patchwork of policies, as well as the political difficulty of advocating for inoculation programs which prioritize imprisoned people, has led to wide disparities in inmate vaccination rates state -to-state. In Kansas on March 17, nearly half of state prison inmates had received at least one dose, and officials there expected to have almost complete coverage with at least a first dose by mid-April. As of the same day in Florida, however, no inmates had received a dose, despite the fact that nearly a quarter of Florida’s inmates at some point contracted COVID. In response, Gov. Ron DeSantis stated, “there’s no way you’re going to get some prisoner a vaccine over a senior citizen." The sentiment that prisoners should be deprioritized for the rollout can be

seen elsewhere, in Colorado, where a plan for state prisoners to be granted vaccination priority was scrapped after complaints, and in Oregon, where there was widespread public complaint about inmates being included in early stage plans (although notably the state was later given a court mandate to inoculate its prisoners). Although Missouri placed correctional staff members in phase 1B, prisoners remain in Phase 3 of the Missouri COVID-19 vaccination plan, wherein it is stated that "local public health authorities and state health authority will target vaccination efforts toward the most vulnerable populations, such as homeless populations... and local incarcerated individuals." The idea that the pandemic has shed light on systemic issues is one that’s oft repeated by politicians and news media alike. The question now is what we’ll do with our awareness of the injustices facing so many Americans. It would be naive to assume that this is the last pandemic we’re going to face, and irresponsible to ignore the already glaringly substandard conditions of the carceral system. While it’s promising that so many states have chosen to prioritize the inoculation of detainees, the fact remains that many others haven’t. The recent public pushback against governments who opted to do so is also disheartening. It is important to remember that prisons aren’t a closed system—staff leave at the end of their workday and inmates get released. Ensuring disease doesn’t run rampant through jails, prisons, and detention facilities is a serious public health consideration that’s in the interest of everyone, incarcerated or not. The truth is, even if detainment facilities were completely isolated from the general population, we should still be taking greater steps to ensure the safety of our fellow human beings. The purpose of detainment is, ostensibly, to rehabilitate people—not put them in danger.

Shonali Palacios ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at shonalip@wustl.edu.

Don’t Forget about Romney’s Child Allowance Charlotte Kramon, Staff Writer

emocrats have been waiting to pass legislation that would get aid to those who desperately need it, but their lack of congressional representation interferes with most proposals. In early February, Senator Mitt Romney (R) proposed a universal child allowance. Unlike the benefit included in the stimulus package, Romney’s legislation would be permanent. While the plan is far from perfect, Democrats should jump on the opportunity to negotiate and pass a package that is expected to lift millions of people out of poverty. Senator Romney’s plan, the Family Security Act, includes an allowance of $250 per month ($3,000 per year) for each child ages 6-7, and $350 ($4,200 per year) for kids ages 0-5. These monthly installments would be sent out by the Social Security Administration (SSA), so families would not have to sign up for any program in order to receive the checks. A child from a family with poverty-level incomes has significantly worse economic and educational outcomes and earns less than children from wealthier families. The Niskanen Center, a public policy thinktank, found that the plan would lift one third of children and 5.1 million people out of poverty, and poverty across the board would fall by 14%. Childcare is both expensive and difficult to access. According to the Center for American Progress, over half of Americans live in childcare deserts. In places that lack childcare infrastructure, parents need to stay home instead of work. When childcare deserts do develop more robust childcare infrastructure like daycares, parents struggle to pay for it. Because of the enormous cost of childcare, families are increasingly having fewer kids than they would like to have. Compared with other countries, the United States has a weak support system for struggling families. Countries such as Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom created child allowances in the 1940s, while the US waited until 1997 to provide relief for families. (At one

24 WU Political Review

“Straightforward” is a key word here. Fights about welfare, work disincentives, and excess generosity currently undermine the efficacy of the current welfare system. point a child allowance plan reached President Nixon’s desk, but he refused to sign it.) Unlike other countries, though, the US enacted non-refundable tax credits, which exclude poor families that do not pay taxes. Only half of the tax credit is refundable, so even poor families who do file, still do not receive full benefits. Romney’s plan would replace the Child Tax Credit, which amounts to just $2,000 a year and is accessible only to people who make more than $11,000 annually. Under the CTC, not only do the poorest families miss out on relief, but roughly 22% of eligible families do not actually get it because of complicated administrative procedures. By going through the SSA, nobody would have to sign up in order to receive their checks. Wealthy families would receive the checks, too, but they would return the money on April 15. This is another mechanism to ensure that everyone eligible receives the money. The United States never enacted a child allowance because of the stigma surrounding welfare. In other countries, there is little discursive distinction between refundable and non-refundable tax credits. Meanwhile, Senators Marco Rubio and Mike Lee equated Romney’s plan with “welfare assistance” that will disincentivize work and proposed their own plan to expand the CTC. Concerns about disincentivizing work remain

groundless. On average, parents spend about $6,000 per child annually. People have other expenses besides children, so nobody can live off of a child allowance check. Regardless, under Romney’s plan, choosing to work does not even cause people to lose their benefit. People can take higher-paying jobs and receive the same benefits. Countries with similar child allowances have not experienced reductions in employment. Canada enacted payments in 2006, and employment increased for single mothers. Employment decreased for single mothers without college degrees, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Why should people be forced into physically and emotionally taxing low-wage labor to support their families when our government is wealthy enough to support them? Perhaps mothers want to stay with their children instead of engaging in arduous daily labor that barely provides them financial security. Republicans’ obsession with work seems to override their supposed support for family values. Republicans also tend to be obsessed with the deficit. Romney’s plan does not increase the deficit, which could help it garner bipartisan support and pass without having to use budget reconciliation. However, the consequences of keeping spending minimal seem to outweigh the costs. Romney plans to pay for the child allowance by cutting programs that millions of families depend on. It would eliminate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the child dependent care credit, and State And Local Tax deduction (SALT). To be fair, these programs are indeed flawed. SALT is regressive and mostly benefits wealthy people. While Democratic Congressmembers might be hesitant to support the plan because most of the money from SALT goes to blue states, eliminating it would not hurt a substantial number of poor families and would actually raise taxes on wealthy people. The child-dependent care credit is also poorly targeted and inaccessible to

families who do not have incomes. States decide how they distribute TANF funding, and several states use the money to finance anti-abortion clinics or programs intended to discourage single parenting. Only 23% of people who are eligible for TANF receive the benefits. Eliminating the EITC, though, would hurt families. Poor families with children over five currently receive $5,420 through the EITC and CTC. That is $1,420 more than they would receive under Romney’s proposal. Larger families would also be punished under the plan in the name of saving money. Romney proposed a $15,000 benefit cap, so large families would receive less money per child. The plan also phases out at $200,000 for single parents and $400,00 for married parents. Matt Bruenig, of the People’s Policy Project, found that the phase-out and the benefit would save only $7 billion, or 2.8% of the plan’s total cost. Even though the plan distributes money more easily than current policies do, saving 2.8% does not seem to be worth dealing with the administrative costs of a phase-out. The deficit neutrality of Romney’s plan might garner more Republican support, but they did not care about deficits during the Trump administration. The United States ran major deficits after Trump’s tax cuts, and interest rates stayed low. There was no hint of an economic collapse. We should not have to slash every single child benefit to enact a universal allowance. But Romney’s proposal is better than the status quo, and unlike Biden’s plan, it is permanent. It does not need budget reconciliation to pass. Biden’s child allowance included in the stimulus package expires in December, and the plan he proposed on his campaign has fewer lifetime benefits than Romney’s. It also utilizes the IRS, which is not designed as a welfare agency like the SSA. Romney’s plan is simple, accessible, and negotiable, and his team is already hoping to negotiate with Biden. As Dylan Matthews of Vox says, we mustn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. “It might not be Chuck Schumer’s

While the plan is far from perfect, Democrats should jump on the opportunity to negotiate and pass a package that is expected to lift millions of people out of poverty. ideal plan,” Matthews writes, “but it would help millions of families with children in a straightforward way.” Straightforward is a keyword here. Fights about welfare, work disincentives, and excess generosity undermine the efficacy of the current welfare system. That could be changing. Stimulus checks were popular—so popular that Congress passed the second round of them. Recipients of stimulus checks are not sitting watching TV all day, but mothers are slaving away at unfulfilling, minimum wage jobs despite wanting to stay home with their kids. If we really want to get people help, we need a simpler method than complicated bureaucratic procedures and we need to give people money monthly, not yearly. People cannot wait.

depend on it. Romney’s Family Security Act would lift 5.1 million people out of poverty and one third of children out of poverty through procedures that are easy for people to navigate. A single mother working nonstop shifts to support her children should not have to deal with an unnecessarily intricate welfare system in order to receive yearly help. Families who are unemployed should not be punished for having no taxable income, and their children should not be punished for their parent’s unemployment. Instead, all children deserve the opportunity to transform their socioeconomic status. The United States needs a more robust and accessible welfare state, and this is an excellent place to start. Charlotte Kramon ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at c.e.kramon@ wustl.edu.

The results of the 2022 elections are unpredictable. Hopefully, Democrats keep a majority. Perhaps Congress will abolish the filibuster. In the meantime, Congress cannot continue to rely on budget reconciliation to pass vital legislation that could be dismantled by the next administration or Congress. “Bipartisanship” has certainly become a buzzword. It often feels like an excuse to suppress progressive policy ambitions. Unfortunately, we need to embrace bipartisanship when we can because people’s livelihoods

National

Ending Homelessness is a Moral Imperative Ranen Miao, Staff Writer

n a 2013 report on housing insecurity, the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated that it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness nationwide— less than a third of what Americans spend each year on weight loss. Subsequent reports have found that it would cost less to place our unhoused neighbors in supportive housing instead of keeping them in the streets, that ending homelessness would decrease healthcare costs and hospital visits, and that guaranteeing housing would save thousands of lives. Today, empty homes outnumber unhoused people six to one. These statistics point towards a simple fact: as the Urban Institute puts it, “homelessness is a solvable problem.”

Quality housing that is “safe, accessible, sustainable, and permanently affordable” will ensure that no American will have to sleep in the streets in the wealthiest nation in the world.

Despite this feasibility, the housing crisis remains salient. Over 35,000 veterans are unhoused, often hindered by economic hardships or the wounds of war ranging from traumatic brain damage to post-traumatic stress disorder. Numbers from the Department of Education indicate that 1 in 16 children under the age of six experienced homelessness from 2017-2018, making them more susceptible to emotional and behavioral problems, serious health issues, and worsened economic performance. Amongst unhoused families, the most frequent demographic are single mothers under the age of 27—disproportionately Black—with two children. Amongst these women, 90% have experienced severe trauma. Since the start of the pandemic, in the aftermath of what has been called a “tidal wave of evictions [and] utility shutoffs,” the housing crisis is only likely to get worse.

the steps of governments who have stepped up to end homelessness, ranging from Utah to Finland, the federal government can reverse these dangerous trends and end homelessness on the national level. What it requires is moral courage and investment.

Why, then, has the United States continuously failed to act? While the answers are multifaceted, the simplest problems are the criminalization of poverty and misinformation about unhoused people. Paired with structural problems, ranging from racial discrimination to economic stagnation, our housing crisis is only doomed to worsen. However, by following in

26 WU Political Review

Causes of the Housing Crisis Before addressing the solutions, we must understand the causes. A key problem is pervasive misinformation surrounding homelessness, and who unhoused people are. One common trope is that unhoused people are lazier or refuse to work; in contrast, many unhoused people work in low-paying occupations, with a survey of 27 American cities finding that 13% of unhoused people are employed. Employees at major corporations ranging from Amazon to Disney have reported experiencing homelessness, in large part due to low wages that lead workers to fall into desperate situations of poverty. Even amongst unemployed unhoused people, the root of their unemployment is rarely a lack of motivation or drive; it’s a lack of resources. Unhoused people also often struggle to access self-care and personal hygiene facilities,

including showers and laundry, which makes it more difficult to meet the professional expectations of cleanliness at job interviews. Without a home and easy access to a printer, it may be challenging to update, edit, and print copies of a resume on demand. Many unhoused people may have extended gaps in employment on their resumes, often the cause of their homelessness, which is viewed negatively by employers. Many unhoused people also face substantial employment discrimination when they fail to present an address or put the address of a homeless shelter on resumes and job applications. A 2014 survey reflected that over 70% of unhoused people reported perceived employment discrimination from private businesses due to their housing status. A study by the Chronic Homelessness Employment Technical Assistance Center reaffirmed these perceptions, finding that providers working to connect qualified unhoused applicants to employers were “frequently challenged by pervasive negative stereotypes when approaching employers about hiring qualified homeless job seekers.” Employers frequently expressed concerns about unhoused people’s willingness to work, capabilities, reliability, appearance, cleanliness, and habits–factors that are often premised on stereotypes employers hold before even meeting applicants. These barriers make chronic homelessness difficult to escape. Even if one wants to find a job, underinvestment and widespread negative perceptions preclude unhoused people from equal opportunity in the workforce. In the words of Jeff Johnson, an unhoused veteran in Washington D.C.: “A lot of people look down at people like myself. So I gave up hope.” Social and structural struggles are exacerbated by policies which criminalize instead of supporting unhoused people. A 2015 report from the Institute of Policy Studies, titled “The Poor Get Prison,” found that “many U.S. cities have

criminalized life-sustaining activities, such as sleeping, sheltering, sitting, asking for help, sharing food, and even resting.” 34% of cities have criminalized “public camping,” 18% have criminalized sleeping in public spaces, 24% have criminalized begging citywide, and 76% have banned sharing food with unhoused people. These policies have led to the rise of what the American Civil Liberties Union has called “modern-day debtors’ prisons.” Incarceration solves no problems for society, costing taxpayers over $60 billion a year to lock up millions of low-income people in traumatizing, dehumanizing conditions. Factoring in the social costs of incarceration, a Washington University study found the true annual costs to be over $1 trillion. These criminal records, in turn, make it even more difficult for ex-convicts to find jobs, with research from Harvard and Northwestern indicating that ex-felons are half as likely to find a job when compared to applicants without a criminal record. Time and time again, the housing crisis is met with punitive measures that fail to equip unhoused people with job skills, resources, and basic needs. The solutions we’ve tried have not only failed but worsened the economic and employment prospects for unhoused people, exacerbating the housing crisis.

The federal government can reverse these dangerous trends and end homelessness on the national level. What it requires is moral courage and investment.

These statistics point towards a simple fact: as the Urban Institute puts it, “homelessness is a solvable problem.” Solutions to tackle homelessness The European Union has already committed to ending homelessness in all of its member states by 2030: the United States ought to commit to the same. Policies like a Homes Guarantee will follow in the steps of Utah’s “housing first” directive, focusing on placing people in homes to meet basic needs. Quality housing that is “safe, accessible, sustainable, and permanently affordable” will ensure that no American will have to sleep in the streets in the wealthiest nation in the world. Beyond meeting housing needs, the government should invest in programs that support unhoused people in the long-run. Policies like Representative Jayapal and Representative Meng’s “Housing is a Human Right Act'' protect unhoused people’s right to vote and access personal documents, invest in medical and mental health care, incentivize non-punitive responses to homelessness, and authorize increased investment for affordable housing. These programs are so essential to ending homelessness that the National Coalition for the Homeless writes that “connecting people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness with job training and placement programs is critical to ensure they have the tools they need for long-term stability and success.”

to work more than two full-time jobs to afford a 2-bedroom apartment. Raising the national minimum wage to $15 and indexing it to inflation would increase the wages of 40 million people and also lift over 900,000 Americans out of poverty. This is not a radical ask: had the minimum wage caught up with inflation since 1968, it would be $24 today. Politicians ranging from Missouri’s own conservative Senator Hawley to almost every Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 have supported a $15 minimum wage in some form. States ranging from conservative Florida to liberal New Jersey have passed $15 statewide minimum wages. Polling shows that almost 6 in 10 Americans support a $15 minimum wage. These reforms are just a few basic steps to end the housing crisis that continues to plague our country. In the long run, our government must commit to serving all Americans: it is a moral atrocity that in the wealthiest nation in the world, hundreds of thousands continue to live unhoused and in the streets. Ending homelessness is not just a possibility: it should be our moral imperative to do so. It’s time to follow the research and invest in our unhoused neighbors we’ve neglected for far too long. Ranen Miao ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ranenmiao@wustl. edu.

Workers also deserve to earn a living wage so that full-time employees are not forced to rely on government welfare programs or be left without housing. Today, the average American worker making the minimum wage of $7.25 would have

National

CHALLENGES OF A CHANGING SOCIETY Julian McCall, Staff Writer

Artwork by Haejin An, Design Lead Design by Leslie Liu, Design Lead

he United States of America is undoubtedly going through a rough patch on multiple fronts. Half a million lie dead from a botched response to COVID. Racial unrest reached a boiling point over the past summer, a tension that has continued to simmer ever since. After a reprieve due to COVID restrictions, mass shootings are back in full swing. On top of all that, we are not even three months removed from an attempt by Donald Trump supporters to overthrow the results of a democratic election.

fertilized the soil from which the American empire grew, thanks to the God-ordained institution of slavery. Women, Muslims, and anyone else who didn’t fit into this vision were excluded from the early fruits of American power. This America existed through the mid-20th century. By then, America was a bonafide superpower, especially after WWII when the United States became the world’s premier industrial power while much of Europe and Asia lay in ruins.

Industrial power was integral to America’s That the shining city upon a hill may be rise to becoming the world’s most powon fire is deeply upsetting to the American erful country and served as the primary consciousness. We compare scenes of organizer of society. The Industrial Revolution carnage in grocery stores and images of not only reconfigured our economic systems, a smoldering Capitol to Baghdad or Kabul, but also profoundly impacted our political, or some other city of brown people that cultural, and social lives. we’ve bombed, because this type of dysfunction only happens to them. Something This Revolution was a quantum leap in must have gone horribly wrong for this to human evolution, and alienation often acchappen in America, we tell ourselves. If ompanied the breakneck speed of indusviewing this moment in historical isolation, trialization, as the centrality of the family it can appear as if we’re experiencing a was diminished within just a couple of uniquely American tragedy. However, generations. Suddenly disenfranchised from a long-term perspective, we may be from common farming areas and family re-living the pains of economic and cul- production, many people became factory tural change that societies before ours workers and wage earners, entrusting have endured. family survival to external structures. The family’s responsibilities also diminished For much of American history, this country’s due to industrialization’s twin process, identity was firmly rooted in Protestant individualization. In pre-industrial society, Christian values, and has been dominated the family was responsible for production, by white males. The blood of black bodies consumption, socialization, and deci-

sion-making. Now, as people began earning their own wages and purchasing their own goods, and the government began providing social welfare for those unable to work, the family’s role was reduced to “little more than child-rearing, and even here it has to compete with the school, peer groups, and child-care agencies.” In just a few generations, industrialization completely changed social structures.

African slaves recently had a biracial man as president. In just 20 years, the United States will be a white minority country. The old moral framework prioritizing individual freedom and personal responsibility is now challenged by an ethos emphasizing equity and inclusion. The former vanguards of America, namely white Christian men, have waged war against their societal demotion, a fight that’s made White Nationalism Alienation and social change have con- the top domestic terrorism threat and sequences. During the 19th and 20th added Donald Trump to our list of presicenturies, instability and revolution swept dents. The process of societal evolution through Europe. Though their causes is an inherently destabilizing one, and the were complex, the ineptitude of pre-in- uncertainty in current American life can dustrial government at managing indus- be thought of as the growing pains of a trial societies was influential in regime changing society. changes like the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War. Julian McCall ’23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached We are currently living through a major at j.c.mccall@wustl.edu. transformation of American society. Economically, we’ve been shifting from an industrial to a post-industrial society for decades. 1979 represented peak American manufacturing—since then, manufacturing jobs have cratered. This represents not just a loss of a paycheck for millions of Americans, but also of a sense of identity. Anne Case and Angus Deaton’s Death of Despair and the Future of Capitalism explores this loss and a peculiar demographic phenomenon occurring amongst former manufacturers. The life expectancy of working-age whites without college degrees is declining thanks to “deaths of despair” — suicides, opioid overdoses, and alcohol-related diseases. They observe, “destroy work and, in the end, workingclass life cannot survive. It is the loss of meaning, of dignity, of pride, and of self-respect that comes with the loss of marriage and of community that brings on despair, not just or even primarily the loss of money.” Culturally, America is undergoing a deep transition from a Christian, white-maledominated society to a more inclusive, post-Christian one. A country that owned

Artwork by Rachel Olick-Gibson

WU Political Review

Lava Jato Gets Washed, Lula Eyes 2022 Run Will Pease

n March 8th, the Supreme Court of Brazil annulled the conviction of President Lula da Silva, the leader of Latin America’s largest country from 2003 to 2011. The left-wing icon was originally indicted in 2016 on charges of corruption in Operação Lava Jato (Operation Car Wash), an investigation into the state-owned oil company Petrobras. While Lula’s conviction prevented him from running in the 2018 election, the Supreme Court’s recent decision has restored his full political rights. The 75-year-old Workers’ Party leader has declined to declare his candidacy in the 2022 election to unseat President Jair Bolsonaro, but as he recently told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “If I’m well in my health with the energy and power that I have today, I can reassure you that I will not deny that invitation.” The stage is set for a 2022 showdown between the two most popular and polarizing figures in contemporary Brazilian politics. Supporters of Lula long claimed the corruption charges to be a political hit job to prevent Lula from running again in 2018, and their frustration is understandable. At the end of his last term, Lula’s approval rating was around 80%. After decades of rule under military dictatorships and austere governments, Lula’s terms were a breath of fresh air for lower-class Brazilians. From 2003 to 2011, Brazilians saw high rates of economic growth and even larger declines in poverty. 36 million were lifted out of extreme poverty and 40 million moved into the middle class due to a flourishing economy and welfare programs undertaken as part of the Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) initiative. Hunger and illiteracy were nearly eradicated, while financial services, affordable transportation, and higher education were brought to more people than ever before. Lula also sought to make his country a major player on the global stage, and while his ultimate goal of securing Brazil a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council didn’t come to fruition, Lula proved his utility as a pragmatic mediator who facilitated constructive

The stage is set for a 2022 showdown between the two most popular and most polarizing figures in contemporary Brazilian politics. negotiations between regional and international adversaries. Recently, Lula has urged President Biden to call a G20 summit focused on finding an equitable process of international vaccine distribution. Lula, who Barack Obama once called “the most popular politician on Earth,'' found himself on the edge of democracy when he was arrested in 2016. What began in 2014 as an inquiry into money laundering quickly evolved into a far-reaching investigation into the endemic corruption of Brazilian politics that exposed corporate executives, politicians of every party, and the president himself. The core of the charges involved construction companies receiving state contracts in exchange for bribes to executives and politicians. In a nation fraught with corruption and an unaccountable political class, many saw Lava Jato as a paradigm shift that put no one above the law. Lava Jato was a long-running media spectacle that caused many observers to put faith in the prosecution to end Brazil’s deep-seated corruption. Lula’s successor Dilma Rousseff was impeached for her controversial handling of Lava Jato in 2016, and in 2017, Lula was found guilty of receiving a beachfront apartment in return for remunerative Petrobras contracts. Lula had served two years of his twelve year prison sentence when a groundbreaking investigation by The Intercept in June 2019 revealed that Lava Jato was compromised by procedural malfeasance and political bias. The Intercept released substantial evidence

of communication and collusion between Judge Sergio Moro and Lava Jato’s lead prosecutors during the trial. However, because the Supreme Court overturned Lula’s conviction on procedural grounds rather than evidentiary ones, it is not certain that this recent decision marks the end of Lula’s legal troubles. In his interview with CNN last month Lula expressed his faith that any further litigations will vindicate him. Even if Lula is guilty of corruption, the prosecution cannot use any of the evidence collected during Lava Jato and will have to build a new case from the ground up. Lava Jato’s legacy highlights the limits of the judicial system as a means to re-democratize a thoroughly corrupt political sphere. With the collapse of Lava Jato, the incumbent Bolsonaro lost his principal indictment of Lula’s governance. The far-right president’s handling of COVID will undoubtedly be the central topic of the 2022 election. Bolsonaro’s dismissive attitude toward the virus has made Brazil the epicenter of COVID transmission, with both cases and mortalities skyrocketing. Other topics that are likely to take center stage are the economy, severely damaged by the pandemic, and the environment, which has also degraded due to Bolosnaro’s laissez-faire policies. Bolsonaro originally campaigned as an anti-corruption strongman in the wake of Lava Jato, going as far as to appoint Sergio Moro to be Minister of Justice and Public Security, but recent developments will make this position untenable in 2022. Both candidates will seek to distance themselves from the biggest political scandal in contemporary Brazilian politics and instead focus on solutions to the numerous crises gripping Brazil.

Will Pease ’23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at wpease@wustl.edu.

International

1936 is Calling: Boycott the 2022 Olympics Eli Nirenberg, Staff Writer Artwork by Haejin An, Design Lead

recently observed the Jewish holiday of Passover and was reminded of a phrase that the Jewish people sign on our holiday of liberation: “In every generation they try to destroy us, and the Lord saves us from their hands.” For many Jews like me, this is more than a catchphrase or platitude. My great-grandparents, Eliezer and Mariam Nirenberg, were Polish Jews. Living in Eastern Europe in the early 1900s was hard enough; World War I was among the tragedies to occur during their childhood. But being Jewish made life even more dangerous. It was true that in every generation they tried to kill the Jews of Europe (see: the Rhineland massacres, the Inquisition, pogroms, etc.), and whomever they were, Hitler was happy to lead them into the next World War. He had spoken openly of “eliminating” the Jews since at least 1919, and made clear his desire for Aryan supremacy throughout Europe. As the Jews of Europe clamored for escape, my great-grandparents were amongst the lucky few who made it to Canada; the other Jews of Brest-Litovsk, Poland, were shot outside of town, or forced to dig their own graves in a nearby forest. Between 1941 and 1942, my great-grandparents lost their parents, siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews to the atrocities inflicted by the Nazi party. Just five years prior to the murder of my family, the international community converged on Nazi Germany to celebrate the 1936 Winter and Summer Olympics. The world gave their respect

While the first concentration camps were being established, America’s finest athletes stood for the Nazi anthem. 32 WU Political Review

The question now is not whether these crimes [against humanity] are occurring; it’s whether the world will once again knowingly contribute to the obliteration of a people at the 2022 Olympic Games. and honor to the Nazis despite their recent implementation of the Nuremburg Laws, which barred Jews from mainstream German society. While the first concentration camps were being established, America’s finest athletes stood for the Nazi anthem. We thanked the Nazis for graciously hosting us as they were forcefully sterilizing women who they claimed would threaten the “Nordic race”. Thousands upon thousands gave the Nazi salute, and Americans silently and sheepishly bore witness. The warning signs of genocide—or at least racial and ethnic violence—were abundantly clear. Kristallnacht—a mass looting of Jewish homes, businesses, and institutions—came just two years later. The first state-sanctioned murder of the disabled and Jewish ghettos began one year after that, along with World War II. Moreover, the mass destruction of European Jewry, along with the murder of millions more including the Roma people (commonly known as “Gypsies”), homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other minorities and political dissidents would come shortly thereafter. The Holocaust systematically murdered six million Jews and millions of gentiles, yet governments and athletes – from America to Argentina to Australia – failed to condemn this horrific regime by attending the largest international display of Nazi propaganda during the early regime. The Nazis seized on the Olympics as an opportunity to masquerade the wide array of lucrative

business ventures in Germany. However, they also had far more sinister motive lurking beneath the surface to reinforce among their own citizens that Aryans were the “master race” by portraying Hitler as an effective international statesman and expanding Germany’s power. Certainly, the American government and nations abroad deeply regretted ever giving credence to a genocide. Presently, preparations for the 2022 Winter Olympics are underway in Beijing (the capital of China and the center of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) autocratic regime). There have not been six million members of a religious minority incarcerated since the Holocaust, but it’s possible that as many as three million members of the Uyghur Muslim minority have been, or are currently in, CCP concentration camps because of their religious and ethnic background. It is true that there is not currently a gas chamber or a crematorium in China, but the Uyghur people are already sitting ducks for extermination: Uyghurs are tortured, raped, and used as forced laborers and Uyghur women are allegedly sterilized en masse. There are also claims – not yet verified by the U.S. government – that thousands of Uyghurs are killed for organ harvesting. This issue is a personal one for me. Just a few years prior to my family’s slaughter in the Holocaust, the global community endorsed Nazi Germany at the 1936 Olympics. I know that my great-grandparents and the loved ones they lost

would want me to speak out for the Uyghur people. I know what concentration camps, sterilization and the criminalization of religious/ ethnic groups can lead to. We – America and the other nations of the world – cannot atone for our attendance at the Nazi’s 1936 Olympic

This issue is a personal one for me. Just a few years prior to my family’s slaughter in the Holocaust, the global community endorsed Nazi Germany at the 1936 Olympics.

Games. I do not have the agency to forgive the country that I know and love for its complicity in the empowerment of Adolf Hitler. What I can do is plead to my fellow Americans, as well as those around the world, to boycott the 2022 Olympics. I beg those who read this to contact your elected officials and demand advocacy on behalf of the Uyghur people. As an American, I will be talking to my congresspeople about this, especially considering that President Biden has yet to make a choice on our participation in the blood games, and appears to be quite swayable.

once again knowingly contribute to the obliteration of a people at the 2022 Olympic Games. Let me stand in the place of Eliezer and Mariam Nirenberg, and let us all stand up for humanity. We must not repeat the mistakes of 1936. Genocide is not a sport or a game: it is time to boycott! Eli Nirenberg ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at eli.n@wustl.edu.

I do not even need to touch on the Chinese government’s other abuses of power – The United States, Canada and the Netherlands have recognized that what’s happening to the Uyghur people is a genocide, and many other nations have condemned the Chinese Communist Party’s crimes despite not using the “genocide” word. The question now is not whether these crimes are occurring; it’s whether the world will

International

Justice Illuminated? Cameras in the Court Elijah Wiesman, Staff Writer

overnmental transparency is one of the foundational elements of a democracy. The ability for citizens to see their elected and appointed representatives in action, allocating their tax funds and legislating the course of their lives, contributes to accountability and civic education. Senators Grassley and Durbin purportedly seek to expand this core tenant of democracy in their recently introduced bipartisan bill that would mandate the installation of cameras in the Supreme Court. On its face, the bill is hard to criticize. It could create an exceptional learning opportunity for Americans young and old who seek to understand the inner workings of the justice system, and might allow the public to understand the Court’s thinking behind complex legal issues. In specific cases in which the justices believe the use of cameras would violate due process, the bill even allows them to vote on their exclusion, thus seemingly negating any constitutional concern over the live streaming of contentious cases on fourteenth amendment grounds.

However, there are legitimate reasons why the television Supreme Court proceedings is one of few issues on which none of the current Supreme Court justices look favorably. Indeed, upon closer examination of the legislation, one begins to notice serious flaws that could permanently alter the nature of the Court as an independent and contemplative body. The most obvious objection to the bill might simply be that it is unnecessary to accomplish its stated purposes. The Court already releases written and oral transcripts of their hearings within hours and days respectively and has been live streaming the audio of the hearings during the pandemic. Therefore, it is a formidable task for those who argue that cameras are necessary for educational purposes to explain why a visual accompaniment is required to understand a body that, in the words of Justice Kennedy, educates “by not having the television there … [it]

34 WU Political Review

teach[es] that we are judged by what we write, for the reasons that we give.” Instead of bringing additional educational value or transparency, many argue that the television of proceedings would create an insidious dynamic of political posturing and self-censorship. In the current “soundbite society” in which we live, it would be all too easy for snippets of the oral argument to be taken out of context and plastered across the evening news. While it is true that the same could be done with the audio clips currently released by the Court, viewers are distinctly engaged by seeing a dispute between a justice and an attorney with their own eyes, which in turn would motivate news outlets to utilize the clips at an increased rate. Encapsulated within this greater concern are the fears that justices may not press hard to get an answer from an advocate for fear of appearing biased or that attorneys may turn to theatrics to win points in the public arena. This trend of political grandstanding can be seen in Congress after the introduction of CSPAN, which televised their proceedings in real time. Surely, this cannot also be the ideal fate of the Supreme Court, an institution that has for so long maintained judicial independence and solemnity. Moreover, there exist constitutional concerns with the proposed legislation outside of the specific due process objections resolved in the bill itself. The legislative mandating of judicial procedure erodes the fundamental separation of powers upon which the American republic is built. While Congress may have limited authority to set forth rules of operation for the justice system under their enumerated Article 1 Section 8 powers, there is a longstanding precedent of judicial independence which

has fostered faith in an independent judiciary. To go back on this separation could disintegrate the unique powers of the Court laid out in Article 3 and would create a slippery slope for further political infringement on a process that has become increasingly polarized in recent years. That being said, alternatives exist that could certainly bridge the gap between concerns of over-politicization and the benefits of education and transparency. While it may be too severe an intrusion to require cameras during oral arguments, televising the Court’s opinion announcements could be a viable middle ground. At that point in the judicial process there exists far less motivation for justices to engage in self-censoring on political grounds, as the case has already been decided. At the same time, the oral announcement of an opinion is a prime learning tool for the public to more deeply understand the Court’s deliberation and legal thinking. Lastly, a sound bite from a case announcement would do little to misrepresent the justice themself, as their words are merely the oration of the opinion that is being released for the public simultaneously. Thus, while constitutional objections might remain, the practical implications of such a shift would nevertheless improve upon the concerning bill’s framework. Elijah Wiesman is a Beyond Boundaries student who plans to matriculate into the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at e.b.wiesman@wustl.edu.

Social distancing doesn't mean we're not ad connected. WUPR invites you to write or illustrate in our next issue. To get involved visit wupr.org/contribute