Divisions

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

POLITICAL

REVIEW 29.1 | Summer 2018 | wupr.org

FEATURING:

Washington University in St. JUULouis The People Across the River The Empire Strikes Back: Soccer in a Postcolonial World

Table of Contents 6

The Case for Talking to Your Racist Grandpa Max Klapow

22

"A Quiet Place" Will be Snubbed At The Oscars Liza Sivriver

7

Theme Art Audrey Palmer

24

The Resistance?

Conor Smyth

8

Washington University in St. JUULouis Ishaan Shaah

26

The Empire Strikes Back: Soccer in a Postcolonial World Max Lichtenstein

12

Eviction Notice: The GOP House Member Most Likely to Lose this November Arik Wolk

28

The Second Syrian War Nicholas Kinberg

29

Islamophobia in China Yiran Cheng

30

Mr. Modi's India Rohan Palacios

32

Segregation in the West Bank: The Case of Hebron Anjali Vishwanath

34

Twelve Too Many Arjun Joshi

35

Theme Art Audrey Palmer

Divisions

National

International

13

Immigration and the Overton Window Garrett Cunningham

14

Red Tape Blues: The Need for More Bureaucratic Independence Michael Fogarty

16

A Ruling But Not an Answer Annie Johnston

17

Democrats Can Win Big in The Deep South Tyrin Truong

18

Theme Art Edison Ho

19

The People Across the River Michael Avery

Editor's Note Executive Director Sabrina Wang Editors-in-Chief: Michael Fogarty Dan Sicorsky Staff Editors: Sophie Attie Ryan Mendelson Jon Niewjik Daniel Smits Features Editors: Max Lichtenstein Ishaan Shah Treasurer: Dani Figueiras Director of Design: Maggie Chuang Web Editor: Conor Smyth Programming Director: Liza Sivriver Front Cover: Will Jamison Theme Spread: Thomas Fruhauf Feature Designs: Avni Joshi Maggie Chuang

Dear Reader, If it is true that a house divided against itself cannot stand, then we’re in trouble. Our clashing views about laws, morals, and common decency might stop manifesting as harmless bickering and instead end up as even more war and conflict. But if differences enrich us, if disagreements do indeed lead us to better approximate Truth and Good, then we might just be the most advanced civilization yet. Which of these two stories is unfolding, whether we are heading toward symbiosis or collapse, only the history books will tell.

Since we couldn’t figure it out alone, we invited WUPR writers to wager a guess.

Contributors considered divisions both typical and atypical. In what can only be described as a stunning work of feature journalism, Michael Avery delves deep into both the past and contemporary struggles of the Anacostia region of D.C., an area where freed slaves once thrived, but then endured the persecution of powerful authorities. Max Klapow addresses divisions that hit closer to home—family and friends with differing political views—and argues for more humane conversations about difficult issues. Ishaan Shaah, creative as always, writes about the cause and impact of JUUL’s popularity at Wash U and beyond.

Writers also considered topics of national and international relevance that were unrelated to the theme. Annie Johnston tackled the Supreme Court’s divisive but frustratingly inconsequential decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Rohan Palacios analyzes the current tenure of India’s Prime Minister, who may be dealing irreversible damage to the nation’s democracy. Writers also discussed, through fresh angles, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the upcoming midterm elections, and Oscar snubs.

One thing we are not divided on: In this issue, brilliant artists contributed designs and illustrations that belong in museums and galleries. Between Will Jamison’s captivating front cover, Audrey Palmer’s unique theme designs, Thomas Fruhauf’s jaw-dropping theme spread, and several other artists’ novel creations, we can’t pick a favorite.

All of their work was masterfully arrayed by Director of Design Maggie Chuang; if you look closely, you’ll notice the striking design changes she has worked into the magazine this summer.

We hope your new school year will be filled with learning, community, and bridged divisions. WUPR welcomes you to join our community of writers, artists, and political thinkers. We’re ready for another year of politics, widely-conceived, and hope you’ll join us; our first meeting will be on September 6 at 7 p.m. in the Print Media Suite, on the third floor of the DUC.

Warmly, Michael Fogarty & Dan Sicorsky Editors-in-Chief

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | Divisions

THE CASE FOR TALKING TO YOUR RACIST GRANDPA Max Klapow

I

spent my childhood angry and arguing.

Growing up gay and Jewish in Alabama, I was always arguing that lighting candles on Hanukkah didn’t mean I’d burn in hell, or explaining to male friends that homosexuality didn’t mean I was attracted to them. It left me constantly on guard, waiting for the next person to tell me how I, as a human, was “wrong.” Needless to say, I was excited for the progressive promises of university. And I was right, for a while. I fell in love with college; I could finally dive into a community of smart, like-minded individuals.

I easily adjusted to passing remarks that Southerners “are conservative hicks who care more about their guns than their children” and “shouldn’t vote if they can’t understand the issues”—comments I myself sometimes thought back home. But recently, hearing disdain for my culture has left me defensive. Am I really sympathizing with and defending the “Southern hicks” I had just escaped?

Sometimes, all it takes to disarm someone is to put down your own sword.

When people disagree, they often mistake differences in fundamental beliefs for simple misunderstandings—especially in politics. Liberals explain and re-explain why their opinion is better, while conservatives fight to have their viewpoints seen as valid. Liberals assume that conservatives misunderstand for fault of not listening to our logic. But in reality, we’re the ones not listening. Too easily, humans holding their own stories and views become “the right,” a set of ignorant ideas and beliefs that “the left”

6

must teach into agreement. We focus on our differences so intensely that we become blind to our similarities.

fact, feeling heard and valued makes us more receptive to collaboration, particularly in contrast to being insulted or ignored.

We frequently see media comment on widespread divisiveness, but few offer solutions. The root of the answer is a principle that has been known to social scientists for decades: humans are hardwired for compassion. Differences and conflict may drive division, but empathy drives collaboration.

University wasn’t exactly what I expected.

Calling myself empathetic is easy, but doing it is hard. College opened my eyes to how we listen to each other. We are divided, and that’s okay.

We’ve become so hyper-aware of “our side” that we forget conflict is normal in democracy; it even pushes us forward. It brings new ideas, compromises, and collaborations. Instead of shying away from conflict through division, we should dive into the experiences that drive it.

Empathy doesn’t have to be a dramatic gesture, but rather a daily practice.

Unfortunately, empathy won’t trickle down through policy. It cannot be passed in a bill, declared in an executive order, or handed down through court opinion. It must be a collective choice expressed through the actions of individuals—all with the ability to empathize, albeit with effort. We must practice empathy casually—daily, small efforts to understand someone who we are in contention with—towards friends and opponents alike.

I remember having a conversation with a friend—we’ll call her Kristen—who, ironically, “outed” herself to me as a pro-life conservative. She described constant fears of revealing her beliefs, not because they’re extremist or unreasonable, but because of the baggage being labeled “conservative” carries. We liberals scoff at bigots for boiling groups of humans down to one aspect they find disagreeable, but think of how easily we write off someone after finding out they voted for Trump. Being intolerant of an identity is a far cry from being intolerant of different political views. But both have the same result: division. Sometimes, all it takes to disarm someone is to put down your own sword.

Validate not necessarily their ideas, but their worth as a human.

Venture out of the echo chamber, or stop expecting change.

Prior to learning of Kristen’s beliefs, we were already friends. Without that connection, I instantly would have put her in the box she so feared. The empathy was circumstantial, an accident of already knowing her, but it taught me that empathy is a choice. In that moment, I chose to understand why rather than just argue.

I don’t know about you, but I’m so tired of being angry. I’m tired of arguing with “something” rather than someone.

Now, those who hate my religion or fear I might come onto them at a sleepover are met with gritted teeth and my best attempt to understand. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a start.

The next time you begin to put someone in a box, pause. Choose empathy. Too much is at stake for you not to try.

If nothing else, you’ll find their humanity.

Of course, empathizing with someone doesn’t include adopting their beliefs or abandoning your own. Empathy simply asks us to acknowledge the essential humanness of someone who sees and thinks about the world differently. It does not limit arguments nor weaken them. In

Max Klapow ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at maxklapow@wustl.edu.

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | Divisions

Theme Art by Audrey Palmer

7

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. JUULOUIS

When the basement’s dark and you’re drunk with your friends, nothing is more millennial and satisfying than passing around the good ol’ JUUL, blinking its trippy colors on party mode.

Ishaan Shah, features editor

M

y obsession with the JUUL began one Saturday night when I was cozied up in my dorm room watching YouTube videos about butchering meat. As I lay in my pajamas, knees propped up, I was deeply engrossed in the knife work of a craft butcher who was carefully demonstrating how to fillet a Denver steak. As I was watching, I heard the door creak open and a tall, thin, blonde college student with glasses walked into my room.

Without saying a word, he inhaled deeply from a black stick in his hand, and before I knew it a cloud of smoke dissipated through my room now tainted with a disturbingly, sweet smell. Confused and at a loss for words, my mind flashed back to other moments where I had seen the innocuous, paper-thin instrument. In line at a concert. Being tucked into someone’s pocket as they left the

bathroom. In someone’s backpack. And now in my face. Whether you like it or not, the JUUL and other modern e-cigarettes like it are primed to define our conversation on addiction, the culture of smoking, and public health.

On one hand, the JUUL is an effective smoking cessation therapy and public health officials have warmed up to the with idea that they can act as harm reduction tools. The UK’s Center for Substance Use Research found that 64.3% of 11,689 adults (aged 21 years or older) surveyed who reported that they were smokers when they first used JUUL, also reported they now no longer smoke cigarettes. Furthermore, a study published in the British Medical Journal found that common mutagens and carcinogens were nine to 450 times less prevalent in vaporizer smoke when compared to cigarette smoke.

Clearly, many of these e-cigarettes offer a safer alternative to cigarettes and can help people switch, but they may also allow a new generation to become addicted to nicotine in an easier, more efficient way.

From the long, forlorn drags of Kurt Cobain to Popeye’s quintessential pipe, smoking and smoking imagery remains deeply ingrained in our popular culture. According to a 2016 CDC report, 26 percent of youth-rated G, PG, and PG-13 movies had tobacco imagery, which is higher than the percentage of people who smoke in the country. This unshakeable “coolness” hangs in the shadow of the explosion of the e-cigarette market, which now eclipses the cigarette market with JUUL itself taking 68 percent of the e-cigarette market share as of June 2018. Its modern design, ease of use, price point, purported

safety, and technological appeal made it the perfect product for helping cigarette smokers kick an old habit.

However, the JUUL’s appeal did not go unnoticed by non-smokers. A wave of criticism has already emerged from the widespread use of the JUUL by underage high school and middle school students. In January 2018, the Westfield High School publication “Hi’s Eye” published a detailed report on Juuling in the school. One senior male is quoted as saying “There is really no reaction from other students when it comes to Juuling, inside or outside of school, because so many people do it or have at least tried it.” This normalization of Juuling is not restricted to high schools and middle schools; its use and culture is emerging on college campuses. An anonymous college student wrote, “Frat parties spread the JUUL culture so much! When the basement’s dark and you’re drunk with your friends, nothing is more millennial and satisfying than passing around the good ol’ JUUL, blinking its trippy colors on party mode.”

While JUUL Labs has vehemently denied that the product is being marketed to youth, many aspects of the product seem to be designed outside the interest of former cigarette smokers. For example, the JUUL Mango flavor was introduced in 2017 after the FDA's August 2016 review of the e-cigarettes flavors and it remains their highest selling flavor. The mango flavor along with the cool mint, fruit medley, and crème brûlée flavor are scarily similar to common frozen yogurt and ice cream flavors, products frequently

marketed to children. 44.3% of college students surveyed thought that the flavors offered were part of the appeal of the JUUL. Furthermore, in a survey question designed to measure how similar JUUL flavors were to common desert flavors, 40.4% of survey respondents mislabeled Coconut as a JUUL flavor and 36% mislabeled Blood Orange. Fruit-based flavors were consistently rated higher than cigarette-smoker oriented flavors like "Virginia Tobacco" and "Menthol."

Furthermore, the JUUL joins a cadre of e-cigarettes designed for the 21st century to be modern, quasi-fashionable ways to smoke. 60.6% percent of college students surveyed thought that the sleek design contributed to the JUUL's popularity; it's minimalistic, black silhouette emulates design trends in today's tech industry and blends in with computers, phones, and watches.

Furthermore, the JUUL has an unintentional feature deemed "party mode" wherein after a user inhales the green light sporadically changes color. A YouTube video with 280,000+ views demonstrates how to maintain this entertaining feature which defines a prominent aspect of JUUL culture which has yet to receive comment by JUUL Labs. Lastly, a burgeoning modification community has emerged on Reddit's /r/juul with over 20,000 subscribers.

Users often post custom cases, laser engravings, and other modifications.

With the JUUL, smoking nicotine products is experiencing a cultural rebirth whose ramifications cannot be measured easily so early in its inception.

Given the exponential growth of the e-cigarette industry, local initiative is required to clamp down on youth JUUL culture which is rapidly spreading from high schools and middle schools to colleges. 47.8% of college students surveyed have tried the JUUL and 16.1% are regular users. This is higher than the 13.1% of adults aged 18-24 who are current cigarette smokers (CDC).

These statistics are in line with the CDC’s survey which found that 11.7% of high school students were e-cigarette users while 7.6% were cigarette users. To address this, Wash U's Health and Wellness Committee and Peer Health Educators need to design JUUL-centric health promotion campaigns and openly discuss nicotine addiction with the student body. Let's not let our mission to save a former generation of cigarette smokers leave a newly addicted generation in its wake.

Disclaimer: Survey conducted on a non-representative sample of 205 current college students recruited via Facebook and hailing from various institutions.

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

National

EVICTION NOTICE:

THE GOP HOUSE MEMBER MOST LIKELY TO LOSE THIS NOVEMBER Arik Wolk, staff writer

W

ith the 2018 midterms only months away, Democrats are in a decent position to take back the House of Representatives from the GOP for the first time since 2010. Democrats’ chances of winning the lower chamber are boosted by the redistricting in Pennsylvania (after the state Supreme Court ruled their congressional districts were unconstitutionally gerrymandered in 2017) and the string of Republican retirements in swing districts. However, Democrats cannot rely solely on open seats and redistricting to get them into the majority—they will have to defeat GOP incumbents to have a chance at flipping the twenty-three seats they need to claim victory in November. While there are several GOP members who find themselves vulnerable this November, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock of Virginia’s 10th Congressional District may be the most vulnerable of them all.

Virginia’s 10th district is defined by its largely well-educated, upper-middle class, ethnically diverse population—the type of voters who were turned off to the Republican Party by the rise of Trump. These demographics represent significant promise to Democrats in 2018. The district that Comstock represents is one that Hillary Clinton won by ten points in 2016, that Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA) carried by twelve points in the 2017 gubernatorial election, and that Comstock only won by five points in her last re-election bid. A recent poll from Monmouth University (rated by FiveThirtyEight as one of the nation’s most accurate polling organizations) had Comstock down ten points to her Democratic opponent, state Senator Jennifer Wexton. Multiple political rating agencies—including the Cook Political Report and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball—rate Comstock’s race as the only election with an incumbent Republican running that Democrats are favored to win.

12

A recent poll had Comstock down ten points to her Democratic opponent.

In 2016, Comstock won re-election by distancing herself from the Trump campaign. She refused to endorse him, ran on a platform of locally focused issues, and was able to position herself as a moderate voice in the GOP. Since Trump took office, however, Comstock has been less willing to distance herself from the President.

According to FiveThirtyEight, she’s voted with President Trump 97% of the time, and while she voted against the House Republican Obamacare repeal, she did vote for the Trump tax bill, which was particularly harmful to her district. A review from the Tax Policy Center found that of the twenty-three congressional districts held by a Republican that Hillary Clinton won in 2016, hers had the second highest number of people using the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which was cut in the tax bill.

During the 2018 GOP primary, Comstock campaigned on her “A” rating from the NRA, distributed literature describing her as a “conservative”, instead of as a moderate as she’s done in the past, and even got Vice President Mike Pence to do a robocall for her. While her leap to the right may have helped her win in the primary, it will likely hurt her in the general election where Democrats plan to make her NRA support a key issue and will have an easier time tying her to Trump given the Pence endorsement.

Despite Comstock’s rightward shift, she has remained relatively unpopular, even among Republicans in the district, only receiving 62%

of the vote (while losing Frederick County, a GOP stronghold) against Shak Hill, an unknown candidate whom she outraised $3.2 million to $245,000. Comstock spent over $1,000,000 in the primary, an usually high amount for an incumbent with a lackluster primary opponent and a difficult general election ahead. However, her weak showing on Election Day showed that her spending may have been necessary to survive the primary.

The way Comstock ran her campaign in the primary highlights two themes about the race in Virginia’s 10th: GOP enthusiasm for Comstock is down, and her rightward lurch will be difficult for her to explain to the centrist voters who carried her into office.

Finally, the issue that separates Comstock from other vulnerable Republicans is the strength of her Democratic challenger. Wexton’s state Senate district covers about 45% of VA-10 and is based in Loudoun County. Previous Comstock opponents have worked in D.C. and moved back to the district to run, thus making them easier to paint as D.C. insiders. Wexton, on the other hand, is well-known and well-liked in Loudoun, which will force Comstock to find a new playbook to attack her opponent.

Caught in a bind between needing to turn out GOP voters while maintaining her reputation as a moderate, Comstock’s chances of being re-elected are slim, especially compared to other Republicans in tough races. She faces a tougher opponent than usual and will be running in a district Democrats are now consistently winning in other elections, making her the House Republican most at risk of losing this November.

Arik Wolk ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at arik.wolk@wustl.edu.

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

IMMIGRATION AND THE OVERTON WINDOW Garrett Cunningham

T

he Trump administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy implemented in April saw the separation of over 2,300 children from their parents. Under the policy, all adults that were caught crossing into the United States were to be criminally prosecuted and sent to a federal jail. Unable to remain with their parents in jail, migrant children were detained.

with it. In this way, the Overton window operates as a political feedback loop. For instance, during his campaign, Trump discovered that his base’s window on immigration was much further to the right than many would have expected.

As a result, he amped up his stances to include Muslim travel bans and wall-building, which, in turn, informed public discourse.

After pictures of the separated children and audio of border agents’ conversations went viral, the policy was met with nationwide backlash. In a survey by Quinnipiac University, 66 percent of respondents opposed the zero-tolerance policy.

One might argue that Trump’s family separation policy and immigration rhetoric generally would help shift the entire Overton window to the right; thus, making Democratic policy more moderate. In reality, the window has widened. While Trump’s administration pushes the immigration window to the right, some Democrats have simultaneously pushed the window to the left.

Trump’s stance on immigration is nothing new: he used tough rhetoric on his campaign trail and popularized terms like “chain migration.”

Yet, while Republicans continue to push for hardline immigration policy, some Democrats have moved further left on the issue. Seemingly overnight, “Abolish ICE” has moved from Twitter hashtag to serious campaign material.

Established in 2003 during the Bush Administration, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] is a relatively new law enforcement agency in the Department of Homeland Security. Most recently, it has been the agency responsible for operating the child detention centers. As the agency has become synonymous with family separations, it is easy to understand why abolition of the agency has been gaining steam among the left.

The model of the Overton window has found new life during the Trump presidency. According to Joseph P. Overton, the Overton window is the range of ideas that are tolerated in public discourse. Overton argued that extreme views can slowly shift the window of discourse in either direction and thus make radical ideas seem more conventional.

According to Joseph Lehman, a colleague of Overton, politicians do not shift the window themselves, but detect its location and move

On the last weekend of June, nationwide immigration protests saw thousands brandishing signs to abolish ICE and condemn the family separation policy. Just a few days prior, the newest face of the Democratic Party, Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, unseated 10-term incumbent Joseph Crowley to win the Democratic nomination for the New York District 14 House seat. Among her progressive campaign policy is her plan to—you guessed it—abolish ICE. Ocasio-Cortez’ promise is a far-cry from past Democratic policy that was fairly moderate on immigration. Barack Obama was labeled “deporter-in-chief” because over 2 million immigrants were deported during his administration— more than any other president in American history. While leftist discourse signals a shifting stance on migration, it is unclear whether mirroring the Republicans’ radical views is the best strategy for Democrats who face an uphill battle in the 2018 midterm elections.

Ocasio-Cortez won her New York district by running to the left of Crowley on many issues.

Other progressive Democrats also fared well against their establishment competitors who were generally more moderate on issues like

immigration. For instance, Ben Jealous, endorsed

by Bernie Sanders, won the Democratic primary for Maryland governor by 11 points over Rushern Baker who was endorsed by establishment Democrats.

While these results are indicative of a larger trend in shifting liberal ideology, they occurred in areas that are solidly Democratic. In 2016, Ocasio-Cortez’ district and Maryland voted for Clinton by nearly 60 and 25 points, respectively.

In these cases, a very liberal stance on immigration proved beneficial. In more competitive congressional districts, Democrats might be better off adopting less extreme stances on immigration. In truth, establishment Democrats won far more primaries than did progressives this June.

As the Democratic Party continues to grapple with mild infighting and an expanding Overton window, its best strategy might be the simplest: to sit back and watch a Republican-controlled government divide its supporters on immigration issues. According to Quinnipiac, just 55 percent of Republicans supported the zero-tolerance immigration policy and a poll by Ipsos found that 51 percent of Republicans supported giving legal status to DREAMers.

Compare those numbers to Democratic supporters, in which 91 percent opposed the zero-tolerance policy, and 81 percent supported legal status for DREAMers. While immigration continues to drive a wedge into Republicans, it seems to have a unifying effect for Democrats— and perhaps that’s all the party will need heading into a potentially pivotal midterm election.

Garrett Cunningham ‘19 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at cunningham.garrett@wustl.edu.

13

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

RED TAPE BLUES:

THE NEED FOR MORE BUREAUCRATIC INDEPENDENCE Michael Fogarty, editor-in-chief | Illustration courtesy of Maggie Chuang

W

e often use ‘bureaucracy’ as a dirty word. Everyone has a horror story about waiting in line for hours at the DMV or spending ages trying to file their taxes correctly. Dealing with red tape has become part of Americans’ day-to-day life.

Since most constituents have been tangled in red tape, “bureaucracy bashing” is a time-tested way for members of Congress to score political points. At the same time, politicians claim credit for successes and can further benefit electorally by intervening on their constituents’ behalf to solve problems. In fact, a large portion of members of Congress’ staffs are devoted to such constituent services. Despite all of the frustrations it can cause, I believe that bureaucracy is an overlooked and underappreciated component of our society. Fundamentally, bureaucracy is how government gets done. The legislative branch makes policy, but bureaucracy is how policy actually happens.

An effective bureaucracy in a representative democracy like the United States is a balancing act between responsiveness to electoral results and more objective policy outcomes, such as highly-technical policies or policy consistency. Sometimes these goals, both of which are important, collide. On one extreme, we don’t want our bureaucracy, and therefore our policies, to be unresponsive to the will of the people. One of the foundational principles of representative democracy is that the government responds to the will of the people.

On the other end of the spectrum, a bureaucracy that is hypersensitive to changes in the political winds is equally undesirable. Imagine if farm policy or affordable housing policy shifted to reflect the partisan balance of power after every election or major political event. It is hard to plan for the future when the ground rules change constantly.

Long-term decision-making benefits from policy stability and predictability. A highly-politicized bureaucracy, while sensitive to the policy agenda of the current governing party, creates instability and unpredictability in public policy.

14

I believe that our democracy would be better off with a bureaucracy that is better insulated from political pressure. Currently, the president has a large degree of influence over the bureaucracy through a variety of measures, above all the ability to appoint (and remove) political allies to key policymaking posts in agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Education, and the Justice Department. This leads to large and abrupt changes in policy, especially when party control of the White House changes.

better policy decisions. Additionally, a more independent bureaucracy would create a more stable policy environment that would facilitate long-term planning and investment. The most straightforward, and already-proven, method of increasing insulating agencies’ decision-making from political pressure is to eliminate the president’s ability to remove policymakers for political reasons. This removes the potential for the president to remove or fire a bureaucrat or political appointee if they do not comply with the president’s wishes.

Our society would be better off with a bureaucracy that is better insulated from political pressure.

The Federal Reserve is a clear-cut example of an agency that enjoys substantial political independence and, because of this, makes better policy.

Although the president and members of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they cannot be removed during their terms. Once appointed, the members of the Board of Governors are free to set what they believe to be the optimal monetary policy, without the fear of retribution if their choice doesn’t align with the president’s wishes.

A salient example of this type of abrupt disruption to the existing policy regime is the EPA under Scott Pruitt: at times, it has seemed like Pruitt’s intentions were to undo regulations for its own sake, rather than for any concrete rationale. Dogmatic, partisan-motivated policy decisions directly contrasted with a more impartial, evidence-based approach. However, policy is not made in a vacuum. Choices between policies will involve tradeoffs between different values, such as efficiency and equity. Although these tradeoffs are inherently political, we should strive to reduce the role of politics in more technical decision-making.

If the Fed did not enjoy this political independence, the president could pressure the Fed to cut interest rates and engage in expansionary monetary policy in the lead-up to elections, boosting the economy and the incumbent party’s electoral chances in the short run, but leading to higher inflation in the long run. In this scenario, the president faces a moral hazard problem: their personal political incentives, and those of their party, come into conflict with the socially optimal policy choice. The solution is to insulate the policymakers from political pressure.

Insulation from political pressure is one timetested way to ensure a proper balance between a responsiveness to the electorate and an ability to make more technically sound, longterm-oriented policy. This would create an environment where bureaucrats are freer to develop technical expertise and consequently make

Another key difference between the Federal Reserve and many other agencies is that appointees have historically been chosen based on merit, academic qualifications, and prior policymaking experience. This stands in stark contrast with cabinet agencies such as the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and the Justice Department, where appointees are frequently selected based on their political

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

Trump’s exhortations to “lock her up” have hinted at the dangers of a Justice Department that is sensitive to political pressures. When candidates either threaten or use the law enforcement bureaucracy against their opponents, it directly impacts the competitiveness of the election being contested as well as undermines public trust in government. This was the consequence of President Nixon’s use of the CIA and FBI to surveil and harass Democratic opponents in the lead-up to the 1972 presidential election. ideology or relationship with the president, rather than on their qualifications for the job.

I believe that many other bureaucracies, possibly most, would benefit from more political independence than they currently have. The Federal Reserve has a particularly high degree of political independence; not all agencies would need such a substantial amount. An alternative scheme could be to require Senate confirmation for the President to remove agency appointees, mirroring the requirements for appointment.

Another potential arrangement would be to create a sharper divide within the agencies between the administrative and technical policymaking sides. Currently, political appointees to agencies take on both administrative and policymaking rules. President Trump’s appointment of Mick Mulvaney as the Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one example. He is an outspoken critic of the agency and has worked to dismantle the agency from the inside. He has halted the agency’s ongoing regulatory and enforcement actions, and even submitted a budget request for $0.

All of these solutions, unfortunately, have the same primary defect: they would require Congressional action to reform the structure of the bureaucracy and its relations with the legislative and executive branches. Although Congress writes the laws, they have largely ceded oversight and control of the bureaucracy to the executive branch. This has created an imbalance in our constitutional system of government, with the President taking on an

ever-larger role in the policymaking sphere. This is both cause and consequence of Congress’ seeming inability to legislate on important issues, leaving the president to act on pressing issues when Congress is unable to.

The Justice Department is a particularly salient example of the need for a greater degree of insulation from political pressure, as the fair administration of justice is a key aspect of any democracy.

Currently, the head of the Justice Department, the attorney general, is a member of the Cabinet and serves at the pleasure of the president. This means that the president can use the removal power as a form of leverage to exert control over the actions of the Justice Department. This scenario occurred during the Saturday Night Massacre, when President Nixon fired two successive attorneys general until he found an official willing to fire Special Counsel Archibald Cox. The risks created by having a politicized Justice Department are different than those created by a politicized Federal Reserve, but they are no less concerning. A politicized Justice Department opens the door to politicized enforcement of the law. This is a dangerous situation; if the law is applied differently to different people based on their political beliefs or their status as a candidate, we are violating the principle of equality before the law, a central pillar of a fair and just democracy.

The abuse of the law and law enforcement bureaucracy for partisan political advantage directly undermines our ability to hold fair and competitive elections. For example, President

This scenario has played out in other countries as well. Authoritarian-leaning leaders in (nominally) democratic countries such as Turkey, Poland and Hungary use their control over law enforcement apparatus in order to maintain their power. Their repression of the press and opposition politicians has led to an erosion of democratic institutions and a democratic backsliding towards authoritarianism in all three countries.

The actions of leaders like Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey and Viktor Orbán in Hungary illustrate the need for a justice system that is free from political influence.

Again, some degree of political control and influence is necessary. I am not arguing for total insulation from political pressure, but rather for a greater degree of insulation. There is an important distinction between political influence on individual cases and political influence over general policies, such as the non-prosecution of low-level drug crimes. One of the key functions of any bureaucracy, and of the Justice Department in particular, is to allocate scarce enforcement resources, and these priorities should reflect the preferences of the electorate.

Additionally, political oversight—whether on the part of the president or Congress—is necessary to ensure that agencies are properly carrying out their missions.

Michael Fogarty ’19 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at michael.fogarty@wustl.edu.

15

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

A RULING BUT NOT AN ANSWER Annie Johnston | Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia Commons (Ted Eytan from Washington, DC)

I

n the days following the release of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, the Court’s 7-2 decision in favor of the Colorado baker, Jack Philips, was consistently found in news headlines.

Philips was sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (hereafter “the commission”) ruled that this was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, violating Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

Philips appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to consider the question of discrimination, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. However, despite the court decision’s prominence in the news, very few of these articles considered the lack of the wider implications of this case.

The power of the Supreme Court of the United States lies in its ability to set precedent. I have followed this case for the better part of a year; I read the Writ of Certiorari, I listened to the oral arguments when they became public, I read through some of the amicus curiae briefs that other lawyers submitted, and when it came out this spring, I read the opinion of the court, written by Anthony Kennedy. This is the document that has the potential to impact my life, and those of so many others. Kennedy’s opinion is the only document with the power to influence future cases; the responses of the other justices are interesting and insightful, but they are not guidelines for lower courts.

In the Writ of Certiorari, Masterpiece Cakeshop asked the court to consider both the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. The freedom of speech claim comes from the argument that “using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component.” The Court has on many occasions confirmed that non-verbal expression can be considered speech in the context of the First Amendment, but in this case a State Administrative Law Judge held that Philips was not engaging in speech.

16

Whether or not creating a cake is a means of artistic expression, and thus whether or not speech protections apply to Philips, significantly changes the consequences of this case. If creating a cake is speech, then this case raises the issue of compelled speech. Can the government require you to say something you do not believe?

The implications of such a claim go far beyond cakes, or even beyond LGBTQ+-specific rights.

The freedom of religion argument in this case comes in two parts. The first is simply that creating such a cake violates Philips’s religious beliefs and that forcing him to make this wedding cake therefore infringes on his right to practice his religion the way he chooses. When most people refer to this case as addressing the freedom of religion, they are referring to this part of the argument. The second component addresses the way that the case specifically has been handled by the Commission. During arguments before the Commission, Philips’s religious beliefs were met with hostility. In fact, one of the members of the Commission described using religion as a justification as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric” possible.

Whether or not the First Amendment guarantees Philips the right to refuse to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, it does guarantee that the American judicial system be neutral towards religion. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual

identity, but it is also unlawful, with a few notable exceptions, to hinder an individual’s freedom of religion and speech. This case fundamentally questions which of these protections overrules the other; as Kennedy put it in his opinion, it “presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of [these] principles.”

When the decision was released, I anticipated the opinion to be nuanced, but the actual opinion was far narrower than I was expecting.

Kennedy clearly states that the reason for this decision is the final freedom of religion argument; the Commission violated Philips’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment, and so the court ruled in his favor. The outcome of this case is clearly important for Philips, Mullins, and Craig, but I find myself both frustrated and relieved that Kennedy made it so inapplicable to future discrimination cases. Both possible outcomes made me nervous: either we allow businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals, or we tolerate compelled speech in the private sector. However, ignoring the issue does not it make it go away. Despite a ruling in this specific case, we are no closer to a constitutional reconciliation of the principle stated above; there is no precedent set by this opinion.

Annie Johnston ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at annie.johnston@wustl.edu.

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

DEMOCRATS CAN WIN BIG IN THE DEEP SOUTH Tyrin Truong

D

emocrats will win again in the Deep South if they engage truly progressive policies.

Yes, I said it. They must run on marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion, tuition-free college, and an increased minimum wage. As a liberal born and raised in southern Louisiana, I believe this is the only way Democrats will consistently win the most conservative part of the nation in the foreseeable future.

If Democrats want to win regularly in the Deep South, they must reject middle-of-the-road, moderate candidates. Politics is about exciting your base and getting the most votes cast in your favor. The only way for Democrats to accomplish that in a sea of red is by engaging the party’s progressive grassroots. Therefore, the party must run a truly progressive platform if they want to mobilize their base.

Let's be clear here: when I say progressive, I'm talking about southern progressivism that has proven that races can be won in the likes of Randall Woodfin and Chokwe Antar Lumumba, the mayors of Birmingham, Ala. and Jackson, Miss., respectively.

Democrats have done just that in Georgia with the nomination of Stacey Abrams, the first African American woman to be a major party's gubernatorial nominee. Abrams beat her moderate primary opponent with over 75 percent of the primary vote. While a primary is much different from a general election, the margin by which Abrams won demonstrates that the Party is shifting further left and progressive stances excite more than moderate ones. Put simply, Abrams has a much better chance of turning out the base than her primary opponent.

In today’s southern political climate, we see moderate Democrats running and losing. To make matters worse, the Republican Party has legislative supermajorities in all eight states that constitute the Deep South. On top of that, they boast leaders residing in seven of the eight governor’s mansions.

Democrats nationwide rejoiced in 2015 when Louisiana elected John Bel Edwards as governor, and again in 2017 when Doug Jones won a Senate seat in Alabama that had been held by Republicans since 1992. Although Edwards’s and Jones’s wins were historic, they were not unpredictable. Edwards ran against a Republican embroiled in a D.C. prostitution scandal, and Jones’s opponent was an accused pedophile. Nevertheless, the moderate wing of the Democratic Party claimed credit for winning again in the South. Yet one wouldn’t be wrong to categorize their wins as outliers due to Edwards's and Jones's political vulnerabilities.

Once Republicans nominate a decent consensus candidate, Edwards and Jones will be relics of a political past. The reason for this is simple: middle-of-the-road doesn’t energize the southern Democratic base. Moderation only excites when Republicans nominate nut jobs (I’m looking at you, Roy Moore).

There is no denying that both parties are shifting away from centrist ideas, for better or worse. This shift will undoubtedly give progressives a boost, since voters are tired of politics as usual. The issues that minority, LGBTQ+, and other marginalized communities face have not been solved in the past 20 years because of moderates’ tendencies to cede too much ground to conservatives.

Voters and candidates alike understand that.

Southern progressives want candidates who will take the fight to conservatives, not cower in the name of moderation.

The Deep South is home to some of the nation's highest percentages of African Americans, the Democratic Party's most reliable voters. It is also home to a sizeable amount of people of Latinx descent, another large voting bloc in the party.

On top of that, the demographics are continually shifting in the Democrats' favor. According to the Institute of Southern Studies, five Deep South states are expected to be majority-minority by 2040.

Southern progressives deserve candidates who truly inspire them, not moderates viewed as the lesser of two evils.

However, it is not enough to run a Southern progressive candidate. The party must also engage in intense voter outreach. When the party directly targets these communities and appeals to their concerns, voters will turn out in droves.

That is the blueprint Lumumba and Woodfin have used, and other southern progressives like Abrams are following suit.

While it remains to be seen whether Abrams will win the governor's race in Georgia, she will not go down without a fight. Even if she loses, one thing remains true: Republican-lites don't energize the base. In the Deep South, trying to convince Republicans and Independents to vote for moderate Democrats is ineffective because moderates are still relentlessly tied to national party figures such as Clinton, Obama, and, as of late, Pelosi and Schumer.

The best path to victory is cultivating the existing base and turning out the liberal vote in higher numbers. Southern progressives deserve candidates that truly inspire them, not moderates viewed as the lesser of two evils. And for those who believe moderates have a "better chance" at winning, what good is a better chance when these candidates still fall short? Even if progressives lose, at least they'll lose with conviction.

Tyrin Truong ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at tyrin.truong@wustl.edu.

17

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

"Eastern vs. Western Philosophy" by Eddie Ho

18

THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE RIVER WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

The Capital

F

Michael Avery

or many non-residents, “Anacostia” refers to all of DC across the Anacostia River.

In reality, Anacostia is just the neighborhood on the eastern end of the 11th Street Bridge. Despite the area’s current issues with poverty and crime, it is one of the most historic neighborhoods in the whole city. While most DC students make the trip to the Frederick Douglass House at one point for school, they, and their parents, rarely ever know the true history of the

Ana

B

ar ry

’s Fa r

m

/H

ill

sd

al

e

cos

tia/

Uni

ont

o wn

19

neighborhood. Buried underneath the highways and housing projects sits what remains of 19th Century Washington’s most prosperous black community, Hillsdale. Through education and building for the future, the ex-slaves of Hillsdale and their descendants thrived for three generations before they were forced out by the “development” of the area. With Washington swiftly gentrifying, the story of Hillsdale may be more relevant than ever.

Prior to 1850, Washington east of the Anacostia was largely unpopulated, save for some small settlements. However, much of the land was owned by speculators who knew that it would eventually become valuable due to its proximity to the Washington Navy Yard, one of the largest employers in the city. In 1854, three developers purchased the 240-acre area, known as Anacostia, at the eastern end of the 11th Street Bridge. They named their new whites-only subdivision Uniontown, and divided the land into 700 lots. The lots sold quickly to speculators looking for cheap land, but failed to attract Navy Yard workers and their families. In fact, 17 years after the establishment of Uniontown, only 80 families lived there; this lack of residents led to a lack of community development. Opportunities for growth came too late,

and John Van Hook (one of the founders of Uniontown) declared bankruptcy in 1877.

After the Civil War ended in 1865, the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands was created to help the four million freedmen adjust and settle into their new lives. The bureau purchased Barry’s Farm, a 375-acre area southwest of Uniontown, which was renamed to Anacostia by this time. They hired freedmen to help develop the area and allowed them to save some of their wages to go towards buying one-acre lots.

Barry’s Farm was seen as a wonderful opportunity by many freedmen. According to historian Louise Hutchinson, “In order to purchase property, entire families worked in the city all day and walked at night to Barry’s Farm to develop their land and construct their homes by lantern and candlelight. As one man described it, ‘the hills and valleys were dotted with lights. The sound of hoe, pick, rake, shovel, saw and hammer rang through the late hours of the night.’” By 1871, 500 black families had settled in Barry’s Farm, and the area’s first public school was opened.

The success of Uniontown and Barry’s Farm, renamed Hillsdale in 1874, led to the creation of other settlements, both black and white. By

This house at 1342 U Street SE is one of the oldest houses in Anacostia, and is an example of what was built in Anacostia between the Civil War and WWII.

1880, Hillsdale was home to blacksmiths, carpenters, shoemakers, bricklayers, painters, government clerks, teachers, midwives, dressmakers, grocers, and carriage makers. Hillsdale had also become a feeder community for Howard University, creating a well-educated populace.

According to Jane Freundel Levy, the Chief Historian and Managing Editor of Washington History, “…Hillsdale was more accomplished than [Uniontown and Congress Heights, both whites-only settlements bordering Hillsdale] put together.”

In 1877, Anacostia’s most famous resident arrived. Frederick Douglass, born a slave, educated himself by reading anything he could. After escaping slavery, he became a renowned writer and abolitionist, eventually serving as an advisor to multiple U.S. presidents. Douglass’ reputation was so great that he defied Anacostia’s whites-only restriction and purchased the estate of John Van Hook, the bankrupt founder of Uniontown. He renamed his home Cedar Hill because of the hill it sat on, which gave Douglass sweeping views of downtown Washington.

Douglass became very active in community matters; he regularly spoke at churches and schools, and his three sons were some of the earliest residents of the area. Douglass eventually gained the nickname “The Sage of Anacostia”.

Today, Cedar Hill is a National Historic Site and Douglass’ house holds a museum dedicated to his life and the abolitionist movement. Other famous Anacostia residents have included Solomon G. Brown, the Smithsonian’s first black employee and a member of the District’s House of Delegates, and Frederick Douglass Patterson, the founder of the Tuskegee Airmen Program and the United Negro College Fund.

The idyllic, semi-rural setting of Anacostia quickly changed with the start of World War II. This included Hillsdale, which had joined with Anacostia to form a single community. Thousands of workers and veterans moved to the area, including a large number of African-Americans. The government used eminent domain and condemnation proceedings to take land from residents. On this land, they built a series of low-income housing projects; the first two, Barry Farms and Douglass Dwellings, were ironically named after the community they were destroying. Even more devastating was the 1943 construction of the Suitland Parkway, which connected Washington to several military facilities in southeast Maryland. According to the president of the Anacostia Historical Society, Dianne

Located at 1301 U Street SE, just down the block from the house to the left, these apartments are an example of the types of buildings that were contructed in Anacostia after WWII.

Dale, “Neighbors could no longer talk to each other over the backward fence. Businesses, homes, and property were lost.” Over the next twenty years, the dual 11th Street bridges, the Frederick Douglass Bridge, and I-295 (the Anacostia Parkway) were constructed. While they connected Anacostia to the rest of the city, they also disrupted the neighborhood and displaced more people.

Change only came faster in the 1950s, with the city pursuing a campaign of urban renewal. Using eminent domain, the city forced out thousands of low-income residents of the Southwest Waterfront neighborhood, many of whom came to Anacostia. The influx of the disadvantaged required more housing projects, which led to many wealthier residents, especially the white ones, fleeing to the suburbs. Anacostia, formerly the all-white Uniontown, was below 13% white by 1970. Washington as a whole began to decline after the riots of 1968 over the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The city was hit hard by the crack-cocaine epidemic of the 1980s, and in the early 1990s, the city was known as the "murder capital” of the country.

While Washington D.C. has improved significantly in modern times, Anacostia has largely

been left out of that development.

Washington has made efforts to preserve Anacostia’s unique history, including establishing the Anacostia Historic District in 1978. This, along with the city giving tax credits to community members renovating and refurbishing their homes, has helped save some of the historical architecture of the area. Unfortunately, Hillsdale was not included in the Historic District because much of the original architecture is no longer there. According to Dale, “this fragility of infrastructure is often the fate of early African American sites… [however,] today, historic preservation reaches beyond architecture to incorporate a broader cultural approach in an attempt to achieve a comprehensive understanding of American life and events. The history of Anacostia presents a nationally significant microcosm of the full range and vitality of African American experience.”

young residents believe the neighborhood “went from slavery to slums”. Another concern is how Anacostia will change moving forward. Washington is going through a period of growth unlike anything since the 1950s. The city is gentrifying at a rapid pace, and neighborhoods that were considered unsafe ten years ago now are now the some of the hottest areas. While development brings money, many residents fear that they will be forced out. The city recently proposed a development to would replace Barry Farms low-income housing complex; however, the DC Court of Appeals sided with tenants this April, as the proposal did not have enough affordable housing units to accommodate all current residents. While this was a win for the tenants, the community still has a long journey ahead. If history has taught us one thing, it is that powerful people have no issue with ousting communities that do not fit their image of the future.

Moving forward, the Anacostia area has two main problems. The first is that young residents of Anacostia don’t know about the rich history of the area. A vibrant, self-sufficient community of freedmen and their descendants thrived in Hillsdale despite living in an era of prejudice and persecution. According to Dale, however, many

Michael Avery '21 studies in the Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts. He can be reached at mbavery97@gmail.com.

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

A QUIET PLACE WILL BE SNUBBED AT THE OSCARS Liza Sivriver, programming director | Illustration courtesy of Michael Avery

A

lthough I am anxiously awaiting an exposé on MoviePass’s sketchy-at-best business model, I took the deal that felt too good to be true and ran with it. MoviePass is a subscription-based ticketing service for movies. For a flat fee for $9.95 per month, MoviePass allows users to see one movie per day, sending each subscriber a prepaid debit card to pay for each showtime. After walking

out of the theater midway through the trashy cringiness of Bill Holderman’s Book Club and wrestling with the unnuanced, lackluster portrayal of London’s Orthodox Jewish community in Sebastian Lelio’s Disobedience, I was grateful that MoviePass freed me of the financial burden of paying upwards of $12 for a movie experience.

The service granted me the freedom to watch films I would have otherwise missed out on. Two movies stand out in particular. John Krasinski’s A Quiet Place blew me away with its primarily non-verbal performance and its unique sound mixing, taking advantage of the silence that consumed most of the film. Featuring stunning cinematography, an intricate storyline, along with an exceptional performance by Toni Collette, Ari Aster’s Hereditary cemented itself as an instant classic. Despite my praise for these phenomenal movies, I couldn’t help but think, “It’s a shame they’re not going to win any Oscars.”

Historically, the odds are stacked against these two spectacular movies when it comes to recognition at ceremonies like the Oscars and Golden Globes, especially outside of the technical categories. More informally, these movies will probably be snubbed of features in online listicles called something like “Must-See Movies”. The film establishment holds a prominent anti-horror bias in what it ranks and highlights, or in what it deems quality entertainment versus popular and lesser.

The horror genre has been a staple of entertainment—whether through folk tales of witchcraft and the supernatural or Western classics like H.P. Lovecraft’s “The Call of Cthulhu.” Films are no exception to appreciating fear and horror.

The genre of horror interacts with mainstream American culture primarily through its recognition at award ceremonies, like the Academy Awards or Golden Globes. Interrogating the anti-horror bias of the film establishment raises the questions of what purpose award shows serve, and how legitimate they really are. Using the most traditional metric for film recognition— the Academy Awards—the film establishment

22

exposes its prejudice against fear flicks. Only one horror movie, Jonathan Demme’s Silence of the Lambs, has won the Best Picture award.

Five others have been nominated for the same award, the most coveted prize of the night.

Genre classics like Frankenstein and The Shining, as well as recent favorites like The Babadook and The Witch, received no nominations from the Academy. With a vast majority of the nominations in technical categories, only a handful of horror films have received nods during award season, inaccurately reflecting the amount of horror movies released each year. Of course, these arbitrary award ceremonies do not and cannot capture true artistic and technical merit, but rather give us insight into what contemporary critics and the general American public consider to be excellent.

A popular solution to the Academy’s anti-horror bias is to create a separate award recognizing the Best Horror Film, like the Best Foreign Language Film and Best Animated Feature categories designed to recognize film genres. The idea is that films in the horror genre would be recognized consistently and independent of the general pool of a given year’s cinema. However, creating categories for genre awards stands upon a flawed premise and exposes the bias of the Academy. If horror films were fairly considered for all awards, there would be no need for an independent genre prize. Rarely are films in genre categories ever nominated for other awards, further indicating the Academy’s bias.

Isolating a group of films into a genre category serves to recognize these films just enough to satisfy fans while avoiding pitting them against critic favorites. On one hand, considering films of different genres separately enforces these genres as deviant and mutually exclusive with “Best Picture.” At the same time, this type of categorization creates recognition for the best of these films, normally unrecognized because of the genre bias. Separation inherently implies hierarchy. Especially in recognition, awards being presented individually imply levels of prestige, with the last award of the night usually being the

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

most coveted. The solution for anti-horror bias does not lie in conceiving independent awards.

The Academy should shift their genre bias so that these special categories become unnecessary, and films of all genres and backgrounds be equally considered.

The anti-horror bias of the Academy Awards— among similar institutions—feeds into a larger phenomenon of “Oscar bait,” a term referring to films produced with the primary motivation of nominations for the Oscars. Gabriel Rossman and Oliver Schilke, two UCLA sociologists, analyzed what factors contribute to “Oscar bait,” and created an algorithm to predict how many Oscars a film would be nominated for by scanning its summary and tagged keywords on IMDB. They found that war movies, historical epics, and biographies were the most likely to earn nominations. Common themes of nominated films included plot elements of political intrigue, disabilities, war crimes, and show business. Films with keywords like “zombie” were negatively correlated with nominations, disqualifying a common trope of horror. Horror films are not the only ones that suffer from the formulaic attitude of the film establishment -- genres like westerns, musicals, and sports rarely see recognition.

Category prizes label films as valid art only when they conform to our notions of what a good horror or musical or comedy film should contain.

Genre categories are at the same time freeing and limiting. A horror genre may have resulted in Jordan Peele’s Get Out being considered only a great horror film instead of a great film in general. However, the Golden Globes Awards, which do not contain a designated horror section, categorized Get Out as a “musical or comedy.” The contradictory nature and role of award ceremonies in the designation of horror films illustrate that attitudes toward the genre cannot be solved through the tweaking of awards shows’ structures. Rather, these problems would be more appropriately addressed by changing the makeup of the institutions.

Corporate entities can do their part to help the film establishment overcome its genre bias. As streaming consumption waxes and movie-going rates wane, digital recommendation algorithms hold the power in controlling what viewers watch. In the case of streaming giant Netflix, the program uses algorithms to recommend viewing that users will likely enjoy but might not know about based on their watching history and other customer data. If you binged Parks and Recreation in the span of a few lonely summer nights, you might see a recommendation to start Freaks and Geeks, a series dealing with different themes like coming of age, but with similar humor and a sitcom setup. Netflix is using this intelligent and sneaky algorithm to market entertainment slightly different than users’ typical watching habits, but still compatible with the preferences of the users. In particular, Netflix said in August 2017 that it is refining its algorithms to recommend more horror and science fiction to users.

Todd Yellin, vice president of product innovation at Netflix, announced that the new algorithms will “help members break these pre-conceived notions and make it easier for them to find stories they’ll love, even in seemingly unlikely places.”

The company cites horror series Stranger Things as a prime example of the algorithm’s power in overcoming genre bias, “One in five Stranger Things fans were new to horror before [they watched Stranger Things].” In 2017 and 2018, Stranger Things racked up 49 wins and 178 nominations in critical award ceremonies.

Because the series only streams on Netflix, we would be remiss not to give Netflix’s recommendation algorithms credit for promoting this show to a wider, horror-averse audience. Some may say that Netflix is pushing an agenda by altering its recommendation engine to suggest more horror films, but actually Netflix is only making the appropriate changes to feature relevant movies (and shows) of all genres, regardless of their formal recognition.

Horror is on the rise. The New York Times dubbed 2017 as “The Biggest Year in Horror

Historically, the odds are stacked against these spectacular movies when it comes to recognition at ceremonies like the Oscars and Golden Globes.

History,” citing box office records for the genre.

Critics see wins by recent films like Get Out as progress by the film establishment. But before they tout a few nominations of one movie as a breakthrough for the Academy’s relationship to genre, the institution should reconsider how horror films are promoted, considered, and classified. A concrete way to combat bias would be to invite more directors, actors, designers, and technicians with experience with a wide variety of genres as members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. More experts that understand the nuances of horror would help the Academy overcome its anti-horror bias.

There’s no telling how long companies that make horror films accessible (like MoviePass) will last – mainstream acceptance is necessary in acknowledging the merits of horror films. When we see consistent nominations and wins of deserved horror films in technical and non-technical categories, we then can claim evolution of the film establishment.

Liza Sivriver ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lizasivriver@wustl.edu.

23

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

THE RESISTANCE? Conor Smyth, web editor | Photograph courtesty of Wikimedia Commons

T

he “resistance,” a movement ignited by the election of Donald Trump, is for the most part Democratic, although it attracts varying degrees of Republican solidarity on certain issues. Although one might expect such a movement to resist Trump from the left, far too often it appears that the “resistance” is content to either assist in the implementation of Trump’s right-wing policies or to push Trump to the right. The significant bipartisan support for the expansion of the federal government’s spying powers and for the rollback of Wall Street regulations in recent votes provide cases in point. Yet of all policy areas, the one where the “resistance” has proven most shameful is foreign policy. The issue of Russia immediately comes to mind.

When it comes to Russia, the “resistance” has eagerly taken up a Cold War, McCarthy-esque mindset, resisting Trump not from his left, where the vast majority of “resistance” members ostensibly lie on the political spectrum, but from his right. An article in Time from before the July Trump-Putin summit ended, “If it were not for the specifics surrounding Trump, a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia would actually make plenty of geopolitical sense… But unfortunately—and despite his best intentions— Trump may be the least likely President to be able to deliver one.” The takeaway? Today, detente is dead, and the Democrats killed it. The uniformly hysterical response that then followed the

24

Helsinki summit between Trump and Putin has only made that even more the case.

The fear of Russia that has engulfed many Democrats is the result of alleged election interference by Russia during the 2016 presidential race. However, little evidence has been shown to prove that interference actually occurred. The well-respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who exposed the My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib prison, compared “Russiagate” in a recent interview to the lies perpetrated before the invasion of Iraq, pointing out that the language of “high confidence” was used then just as it is being used now by the U.S. intelligence community.

Appearing to divulge findings from his ongoing, but as of now unpublished, investigative reporting on the matter, Hersh continued, “I will assure you that there’s no known intelligence that Russia impacted, cut into the DNC, Podesta emails. That did not happen.” The fact that even Mueller’s recent indictment of 12 Russian intelligence agents includes nothing more than a description of what those agents are supposed to have done— leaving missing any evidence that those agents actually did what they are accused of doing— suggests that Hersh may in fact be right.

Nevertheless, on such a shaky basis, the Democrats have decided that they must resist from the right and force Trump to perpetually heighten tensions with Russia, something

which would be wrong to do, even if claims of Russian interference were proven beyond a doubt. Maybe the worst offender in this process has been Rachel Maddow, who is the top representative of the “resistance” on cable television and who, from February 20th to March 31st last year, covered Russia more than every other issue combined. Before Trump’s inauguration, Maddow argued that if Trump were to withdraw NATO troops from the border of Russia it would be proof that the Russians are blackmailing him.

More recently, Maddow impressively found a way to resist Trump from the right on the issues of Russia and North Korea at the same time. In fully conspiratorial fashion, Maddow suggested that perhaps the reason Trump is making efforts towards peace on the Korean peninsula is because that peace would be in Russia’s interest.

The fact that the “resistance” has staked out its position to the right of Trump has limited Trump’s options to somewhere between mildly and extremely hawkish. Trump, supposedly Putin’s puppet, has placed new sanctions on Russia, expelled 60 Russian diplomats, and closed a Russian consulate. He has increased the U.S. military presence by Russia’s border, armed the Ukrainian military, and bombed Syria multiple times. Most incredibly, the Trump administration’s 2018 National Defense Strategy placed “great power competition”—meaning struggle

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | National

against Russia and China—ahead of terrorism as the top foreign policy priority.

Another main foreign policy focus during Trump’s tenure in office has been North Korea.

Here, again, the “resistance” has run to the right of Trump. Rather than encouraging peace talks with North Korea, “resistance” members have watched cautiously and critically from the sidelines. Rachel Maddow, for instance, harshly reprimanded Trump for canceling joint military exercises with South Korea. Fareed Zakaria did the same on his show and added a point of agreement with Trump’s National Defense Strategy. In his view, the U.S.’s top priority now really must be maintaining global dominance in the face of a rising China. Peace and demilitarization on the Korean peninsula is a side issue, and apparently an unworthy cause in any case.

Meanwhile, seven Democratic senators published a letter laying out demands for a North Korean peace deal. Two of their five requirements for a deal are particularly absurd. One is that the deal must guarantee the elimination of “all of North Korea’s ballistic missiles and programs,” and the other is that the deal must be permanent. These exact same demands were made by Republicans of the Iran nuclear deal in order to undermine and destroy that deal.

One of the signatories to the letter was Chuck Schumer, who himself originally opposed the Iran nuclear deal.

Schumer is also a main player when it comes to a third issue in which the “resistance” turns out to be anything but. That issue is Israel, where lack of resistance from U.S. politicians of both parties to brutality and oppression is all too familiar.

From the start, Schumer was one of the strongest proponents of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. The fact that the embassy move not only legitimizes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land but also leaves little hope for a Palestinian state does not worry Schumer, the one of the most powerful members of the “resistance.” On the same day as the embassy opening in Jerusalem, largely peaceful protests by Palestinians in Gaza elicited a violent response from IDF soldiers. At the end of the day, the

Gaza Health Ministry reported 60 Palestinians killed and 2,771 wounded. Yet the “resistance” was practically silent. As a Daily Beast article noted three days after the mass slaughter, “[O]f the leading Democrats who are expected to run for president in 2020, only one spoke out forcefully: Sen. Bernie Sanders.”

The same scenario has repeated on the issue of Syria. After striking Syria last year, Trump again bombed Syria in April of this year. According to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, of the editorial boards of the top 100 U.S. newspapers, “Twenty supported the [April 2018] strikes, while six were ambiguous as to whether or not the bombing was advisable. The remaining 74 issued no opinion about Trump’s latest escalation of the Syrian war.” Shortly after the attack, MSNBC— the cable media home of the “resistance”— brought on their analyst Malcolm Nance, who complained to an agreeable Joy Ann Reid that no one was killed and called for tougher measures against Syria.

A similar pattern emerged among Democratic lawmakers. As an In These Times article pointed out three days after the attack, “Just four out of 49 Democratic and Independent senators have expressed principled opposition to Trump’s bombing campaign: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).” Ironically, one of the few places where dissent was aired was Fox News. There, Tucker Carlson, with the help of his interviewee Glenn Greenwald, demonstrated how actually to resist Trump’s dangerous policies.

Today, détente is dead, and the Democrats killed it.

What is most disappointing about all of these examples absent or misguided resistance is that there has been so much opportunity to

drive Trump to the left on policy, which does not always mean opposing his impulses. On Russia, he has repeatedly talked of easing tensions and working towards detente. Rather than ratcheting up tensions and ensuring an enemy and a militarized planet, perhaps the U.S. could have a demilitarized friend. In any case, scapegoating Russia will only make the authoritarian right there stronger.

On North Korea, after edging dangerously close to war, Trump is making commendable progress towards peace. Everything is still fragile and limited, making it only more important to support Trump’s diplomacy.

On Israel, Trump talked of being a neutral arbiter during his campaign. According to a piece in The New Yorker, “Trump was convinced, he told friends, that he was uniquely suited to brokering the ‘ultimate deal.’ In private conversations, he expressed general support for a two-state solution.” Given that information and Trump’s lack of knowledge and susceptibility to persuasion, pulling Trump to the left on Israel should certainly be within reach.

Finally, on the issue of Syria, shortly before his recent bombing spree, Trump said in a speech in Ohio, “Let the other people take care of it now.

Very soon, very soon, we're coming out… We're going to get back to our country, where we belong.”

These words echoed his more general non-interventionist rhetoric from the campaign trail, such as his repeated criticism of the invasion of Iraq.

All of these quotes and positions point to the possibility of Trump as a non-interventionist.

The “resistance” could have become a resistance worth its name—one that resisted from the left—by pulling Trump in that non-interventionist direction. Yet instead of pulling Trump to the left, the American “resistance” has pushed Trump to increase his hawkishness. That is both a shame and an embarrassment. A resistance movement in this form does not represent a real resistance, at least not one worth having around.

Conor Smyth ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at c.smyth@wustl.edu.

25

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK SOCCER IN A POSTCOLONIAL WORLD

Max Lichtenstein, features editor

A

s the final whistle blows at a World Cup Quarter Final watch party in Miami, I leave the venue alongside dozens of silent yellow-clad Brazil fans, many on the verge of tears. With their heartbreaking 2-1 defeat to Belgium, Brazil’s elimination narrows the competition to six teams going into the second leg of the Quarter-Finals—all European. In a World Cup marked by upsets and underdog stories, the proverbial death of the Global South’s Last Chance on the international, globalized stage of the tournament seemed especially devastating. After all, Europe has historically dominated the competition, with the notable exceptions of Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil. In 21 competitions over 88 years, there have only been two World Cup Finals without a European team, in 1930 and 1950.

Yet despite such a lopsided track record, the state of the post-colonial world in international soccer remains complex, and labeling the squads representing European nations as “European teams” is overly simplistic. In reality, much of the talent that makes these European teams so consistently successful comes from immigrant families of European colonies. France’s current 23-man squad boats 17 immigrants or children of immigrants, including breakout star Kylian Mbappé, son of an Algerian and a Cameroonian.

In countries such as France, Switzerland—and yes, even the Brazil-crushing Belgium—a multicultural focus on youth development has both bolstered the strength of these teams and helped recent migrants integrate into societies that have frequently pushed them to the fringes.

However, the identity and assimilation found in

soccer allegiances has also flowed in the opposite direction for this golden generation of immigrant footballers.

FIFA, the regulating body for international soccer, does not restrict players to the team of their nationality. A player is eligible to play for a team if they were born in that country, their parents were born in that country, their grandparents were born in that country, or they have lived in the country for at least five years. This flexibility allows for “European” players of African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent to represent the nations of their lineage, should they so choose. Morocco was the team that made the most of these rules in 2018, which fielded an “imported team” of 17 foreign-born players and just six Moroccans—with majority of the foreign representation coming from France.

Netherlands-born Mimoun Mahi, for instance, plays for a Dutch club and represented the Netherlands youth team, but chose to play for Morocco in his professional career. The striker explained, “I think with the heart, and the heart was for Morocco,” pointing to the emotions he felt scoring for a country his parents had left decades ago.

The different choices for players eligible to play for more than one team offer a telling dichotomy on generational identity and the legacy of colonialism. On the one hand, you have players like Mbappé, an immigrant with African blood who became more and more of a French icon with each World Cup match. With French jerseys on their backs, Mbappé and his teammates with

similar backgrounds tear down divisions and make progressive statements on globalization in an increasingly nationalistic Europe. Their mere presence on the pitch seems to say, “This is what France looks like; I am France.” Meanwhile, figures like Mahi reclaim the identity and pride of their roots, while rejecting the sort of neocolonialism of representing (and serving) their Western European countries of residence.

As nationalistic fervor and blatant anti-immigration platforms become more commonplace in Europe, it follows that these players may feel more of a connection to their country of origin than France or Belgium or The Netherlands or England, where racists and politicians make it clear they are unwanted. The far-right Northern League in Italy, the Dutch Party for Freedom, and France’s National Front (among others) have all found recent success in xenophobic language and policy. National Front candidate Marine Le Pen even shined a light on the French National Team to illustrate how her version of France had become “unrecognizable.” Instead of fighting an uphill battle of proving themselves worthy to wear a jersey, these players make their families proud by wearing the colors of the nations that their parents and grandparents call home.

France and Morocco exemplify this phenomenon, but the trend exists in a number of World Cup teams. Here are the profiles of some iconic players who represent the global diaspora soccer has become. In the 21st Century, the Beautiful Game is international, even on the national scale.

Max Lichtenstein '20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at max.lichtenstein@wustl.edu

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | International

International

THE SECOND SYRIAN WAR

Nicholas Kinberg | Illustration courtesy of Michael Avery

S

yrian President Bashar al-Assad will win his war by 2020. Iran and Russia, whose forces now constitute most of Assad’s armies, have successfully protected his regime and the Syrian statelet. Opposition forces—or what’s left of them after the fall of Aleppo in December 2016—are disunited and weak. And the West, which did little during the beginning of the war in 2011, will remain ineffectual because of their lack of interest. So much for “never again.”

But what’s ironic about this entire calamity is that even with the war soon to be behind us, such a catastrophe will happen again. This is because the man who caused the first civil war, Assad, will remain in power. Because of his fear of retaliation from the domestic and international communities, fear of Sunni backlash should his minority government step down, and a desire to stay in power, the Dog of Damascus will cling to his seat for dear life. Such increased repression will yield expected outcomes.

But this claim requires nuance, especially since over half the population has fled their homes since the start of the conflict. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, over eleven million people have fled Syria since 2011. Most who remain likely have Alawi, Ismaili, Druze, or other minority backgrounds; this is because, according to expert Nikolaos van Dam, these groups have historically experienced better treatment under the Assad regime, incentivizing them to stay. As constituents in a post-war Syria, they would sooner prevent another war than start one.

Despite the support of these groups, more bloodshed is likely in the 2030s. The regime will couple its preferential treatment of certain ethnic groups with enhanced surveillance and even more violence. This could come in the form of what Syria’s compatriot, Iran, has tried: the removal of satellite dishes, the jamming of

28

cell towers, and more. What better way to stop revolts than with tools designed to hamper communication?

And for Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, another Syrian war will be a chance for Iran and Saudi Arabia to increase their influence. Iran has done this through the funding of pro-Assad Shia militias hailing from countries as near as Lebanon (i.e., Hezbollah) to as far as Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has funded major rebel groups like Ahrar al-Sham.

Groups like the Islamic State will rise again, out of the harsher treatment remaining Sunnis will experience once Assad regains full power. For the West and the greater Middle East, another war will mean more terrorist attacks and refugee crises. And because they’ll govern better than the Syrian state, Syria and the countries around it will have to deal with Syrian problems. Both the oppressive Syrian state and the murderous terrorist groups will lead millions to flee uninhabitable circumstances, only to be hated by their hosts for trying to find normal lives.

What can Syrians and the world do to stop this bloodshed? Toppling Assad now is not an option, as both Russia and Iran have much more power to keep him in than the rest of the world does to throw him out. Assad is guaranteed to oppress his people like never before once the war is finished. And he will refuse to open economically to the West because he knows that we will use this influence, in the form of sanctions, against him.

So, the only option is regime change—from the inside. The West must deliver on promises jettisoned years ago: to support the opposition, in whatever form it may be, in centralizing itself and overthrowing the war criminal. Conscious, inclusive, and considerate dialogue must be the norm for correspondence between any coalition of countries and rebel groups.

It isn’t important that the Syria that emerges from this collaboration be an all-inclusive Western-like liberal democracy that ensures such death will never occur again. To expect such a thing is quixotic at best and ignorant at worst. Baby steps need to be taken.

What is important is to understand that when the oppressed free themselves, there is no right way of doing it. Syrian culture is Syrian culture, so the result of such coordination will—and should be—Syrian.

To put it in the simplest terms, all the Syrian people want, like any other people, is to live. Assad prevents this from happening. He will continue to prevent this while he is President. So, he must be removed.

Nicholas Kinberg ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nicholaskinberg@wustl.edu.

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | International

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN CHINA

Yiran Cheng

I

slamophobia has long been frowned upon in Western societies, as many deem this an act of religious discrimination or xenophobia; this is not, however, the case in China.

In recent years, posting anti-Islam speeches on China’s social media almost became a politically correct thing: people would speak of Muslims in the way Westerners talk about racists and homophobes, many even call for forced apostasy and genocide. This should not be simply seen as another example where citizens of the “Central Kingdom” reject foreign culture. Rather, this is more likely a combined effort from religious, ethnic, and political divides that affect the public opinions of the Chinese people.

The most obvious trigger for China’s Islamophobia lies in its religious divergences. Since the dawn of China’s civilization, the Chinese people have never been swayed by a dominating religion. Granted, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, ancestral worship, and local cults have been influential to certain regions at certain times, but all of them are dwarfed in comparison to the height of Christianity in the West or Islam in the Middle East. This incompatibility deepens as the communist regime pushes for Marx’s materialism, thereby enlarging the population of atheists or agnostics. Among the secular population, many deem wearing a hijab or praying five times a day unenlightened at best and therefore not something fitting for modern China.

It should also be noted that the Islam problem in China is an ethnic one: almost all of the Muslim population come from China’s ethnic minority, whereas the Han ethnicity, which makes up about 92 percent of China’s population, is mostly nonreligious. The Chinese government’s ethnic policies also failed to improve the situation, as it grants enormous privileges to the ethnic minority. For example, the widely criticized “One Child Policy” doesn’t apply to the ethnic minority, which is a great deal when considering China’s traditional emphasis on having big families. Another outrageous policy is called “两(liang)少(shao)一(yi)宽(kuan)”, which is a governmental guideline that grants the ethnic minority less sentencing or punishment in the eyes of law. Basically, for the same crime, a 20

years sentence for an ethnic minority could easily change into a death penalty for a Han ethnicity. Not only is this policy a severe violation of isonomy and equality of law, it is also widely criticized in the public as this policy is applied to some of the most serious crimes, such as murder, rape, and fornication with underage girls. These unfair privileges enjoyed by the ethnic minority have made many Hans disgruntled, and they tend to release this hate toward the most visible minority group—the Muslims (seeing that the ethnic minorities in China don’t have drastically different skin colors).

just because they consider themselves victims of being the minority.

Domestically inspired terrorism further expands the rift between Chinese people and the Muslims. Organizations like the East Turkistan Organization are real, substantive threats to the people of China, unlike how Western media tend to depict them as “freedom fighters” against the regime. These terrorist attacks are in sharp contrast with China’s exceptional public safety, pushing many to believe that Muslims are the only ones keeping China from having a total and

The problem surrounding Islam in China is also an ethnic one: almost all of the Muslim population come from China’s ethnic minority, whereas the Han ethnicity, which makes up about 92 percent of China’s population, is mostly nonreligious.

Muslim privileges also cause major public aversion. In this case, most controversy comes from the matter of halal food. 民(min)宗(zong)委 (wei), the department in charge of religion and ethnic matters, once issued a policy in 2002 demanding that institutions of higher education establish a separate dining hall for halal food, many of which only serve Muslim students (imagine if the DUC only served halal food, and non-Muslim students were not allowed to enter).

In the case of Ocean University of China, a group of local Muslims smashed the school’s halal dining hall for serving non-Muslims. To make the matter worse, the China Islamic Association once rallied Muslims all over the country to raid or demolish restaurants serving non-halal food in the vicinity of Muslim neighborhoods. These regulations and actions are discriminatory by their own nature. Furthermore, they contradict China’s traditional values, as Chinese people look down upon those who demand privileges,

long-lasting peaceful society. Moreover, the people responsible for such terrorism aren’t foreign radical religious zealots from the Middle East— they tend to be your everyday neighbor, who got tricked or controlled or simply convinced by the more inflammatory branches of Islam into committing such horrendous acts. Therefore, in the eyes of Chinese people, the domestic Muslims are like sleeper cells, readily waiting to be triggered into becoming coldhearted terrorists.

Certainly, this is not an argument condoning the trend of Islamophobia in China. Yet these social phenomena should serve as a warning sign for China’s religion and ethnic policy: were this conflict to be left unaddressed by the Chinese government, the situation as of now would become a ticking bomb, waiting for something or someone to let it blow.

Yiran Cheng studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at yirancheng@wustl.edu.

29

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | International

MR. MODI'S INDIA Rohan Palacios

I

n 2014, Narendra Modi, leader of India’s right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), became Prime Minister of India by winning the largest democratic election in history. He handily defeated the Congress Party’s candidate, and assumed office with a powerful mandate to reform.

Modi’s decisive electoral victory proved the health and dynamism of India’s democracy.

His opponent, Rahul Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma), is heir to India’s most dominant political dynasty, the Nehru-Gandhi family, whose members have ruled the country in some capacity for the majority of India’s post-independence existence.

Victory for Modi, the son of a tea seller from a low-caste family, was a symbolic victory for equality in India. Perhaps more importantly, the country’s Electoral Commission reported record voter turnout, a sign of healthy democratic engagement. Modi received an outpouring of support from both foreign observers and large segments of the Indian diaspora due to his history of implementing “pro-business” policies as the Chief Minister (equivalent to a governor) in the state of Gujarat.

Despite widespread support, many Indians voiced concerns about Modi’s prior association with militant Hindu nationalism and anti-Muslim violence. Quietly, some observers feared that the new Prime Minister would use his mandate to empower Hindu chauvinism instead of focusing on needed reform. In an editorial following the election, the New York Times cautioned that “Mr. Modi has set very high expectations for economic revival...but he can’t achieve those goals if he exacerbates sectarian divisions, for example, by using divisive rhetoric against Muslims.”

Four years into Modi’s reign, with India’s democratic institutions under vigorous assault and Hindu chauvinism on the rise, his skeptics’ worst nightmares have been realized.

Optimists pointed to Modi’s successful record of fostering economic growth in Gujarat as evidence that he would implement reforms to boost the national economy. Some government

30

initiatives have been laudable. Corruption at the highest levels of government appears to have diminished. Initiatives to electrify and improve sanitation in rural villages are intelligent, despite inconsistent implementation. A new bankruptcy code should make it safer to invest in Indian firms.

Unfortunately, this is the extent of the BJP’s legislative success. The much-anticipated Goods and Services Tax (GST), intended to simplify India’s impossible tax code, has disappointed business owners by failing to do so. The policy was expected to introduce a standard tax rate on all goods and services and reduce the number of tax returns businesses would have to file.

Instead, the finished product codified a huge range of rates for different goods, confusingly excluded electricity and petroleum products, and barely cut down on the burdensome process of filing taxes. While the botched implementation of the GST restricted an opportunity for economic growth, the government’s so-called “demonetization” policy was embarrassing. The law rendered 86 percent of circulating Indian currency worthless overnight, with the vaguely-articulated goal of reducing corruption. The policy led to massive queues outside of banks and a painful slowdown in economic activity which hurt thousands of small businesses. Modi has also failed to deliver on his campaign promise of land reform.

With such an underwhelming record as an economic reformer, the BJP is focusing its recent campaigning on issues that will energize its Hindu-nationalist base. In doing so, Modi and the BJP are threatening the secular democracy enshrined in India’s constitution and the country’s multicultural character.

In its historical struggles with the dominant Congress Party, the BJP has successfully mobilized voters by inflaming tensions between Hindus and Muslims. Modi himself first gained international notoriety in 2002 for his inaction during anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, which claimed the lives of nearly a thousand Indian Muslims and left tens of thousands without homes. Modi’s defiant refusal to acknowledge Muslim victims led the Bush administration to impose a visa ban on him. Since the 2014

election, BJP politicians at every level have renewed their commitment to anti-Muslim rhetoric. Party officials have circulated wild conspiracy theories that high birth rates among India’s Muslims threaten to make Hindus a minority. In India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Modi handpicked his Chief Minister as Yogi Adityanath, a militant Hindu monk with a well-documented history of instigating anti-Muslim violence. Adityanath has praised President Trump’s Muslim ban and is notorious for blaming Muslim youth for crime and poverty in his home city of Gorakhpur. In one of his more infamous speeches he threatened that “if they [Muslims] kill even one Hindu, we will kill 100”.

Ceaseless othering of the Muslim community and fearmongering among Hindus has led to a sharp increase in hate crimes across India. “Cow vigilantes” have become a menace, murdering, lynching, and in some cases gang-raping Muslims suspected of slaughtering cattle. Cows are sacred to Hindus, but dairy farms and slaughterhouses have long operated in an India whose government was committed to secularism. Laws protecting cows are now choking new businesses already operating under the threat of violent assault. A recent study of hate crimes in the past eight years found that ninety-seven percent of reported crimes occurred after the 2014 election. Mob violence terrorizing Muslims and even impoverished Hindus, who are often left unprotected by police, has become a common occurrence.

These frequent crimes continue to undermine already-fragile faith in the justice system.

The BJP’s religious intolerance is not limited to its rhetoric. A Reuters report confirmed what many academics in India have been saying for years: the Modi government is engaged in a concerted effort to rewrite Indian history. An initiative by the Ministry of Culture recently convened a committee of Indian historians with the expressed goal, in the words of committee chairman K.N. Dikshit, to “help the government rewrite certain aspects of ancient history.” The committee is fulfilling the long-held ambition of Hindu nationalists, who believe that all modern Indians are descended from a common Hindu people who have lived on the land for over ten thousand years. This is not true. The BJP has a

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | International

Indians abroad must speak out against racist violence, xenophobia, and authoritarian practices. Continued support for Mr. Modi’s India is a reckless hypocrisy that enables those threatening India’s existence as a plural, democratic country. track record of manipulating history and science to fit its narrative of Hindu primacy in India. One minister made national headlines advocating for evolution to be removed from science textbooks because “nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral, have said they saw an ape turning into a man.” Other ministers and officials have made claims ranging from the incorrect (yoga can cure cancer, cows exhale oxygen) to the bizarre (ancient Hindus conducted nuclear tests thousands of years ago).

While the Modi administration’s religious fundamentalism has already degraded the political discourse in India, this move to alter the national identity is insidious. The Ministry of Culture has said that the committee's findings will be reflected in the nation’s textbooks. In addition to the escalating violence against Muslim communities, this change in pedagogy will further disenfranchise Muslims and reinforce abhorrent and false ideas of Hindu cultural superiority.

The focus of this administration’s policy now appears to be on creating a Hindu homeland that subordinates the rule of law to religious considerations.

Another pressing concern for Indian democracy is the Modi administration’s assault on the checks to his power. They demonstrated their disregard for democratic norms earlier this year in the southern state of Karnataka, where a coalition of opposition parties won a clear majority of legislature seats. Rather than allow the coalition to form a government, Karnataka's governor, a former Modi aid, declared that the BJP would instead form a government despite them being the minority party. The Indian Supreme Court was forced to intervene and prevent what would have been a blatant miscarriage of power. Now the Supreme Court itself, one

of India’s most venerated institutions, is also a target. In January, four senior justices on the court took the extraordinary step of holding a press conference to decry the blatantly partisan conduct of the conservative Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Some lawyers have even accused the BJP of blackmailing Misra. The Modi government has also blocked the ascension of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court in retribution for a ruling against the BJP two years earlier, when they tried to impose “president's rule” on the Congress Party-led government of Uttarakhand.

And finally, the media, a critical aspect of democracy, has been defanged by officials seeking to censor criticism of the BJP government.

Last year, India dropped three spots to 138th in Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index. Journalists who criticize the government too sharply can expect to become the subjects of vicious online rumors, experience harassment by local police, and even face defamation suits.

The BJP government has embraced the massive potential of social media in India to push their own “facts” and narratives. For example, the government has successfully convinced millions of poor Indians that the currency demonetization, which has made their lives unquantifiably more difficult, actually pains the rich more. The Prime Minister engages in a Trumpian pattern of loudly declaring victory on issues without actually solving them. Without a strong independent media to fact-check the government, inaccurate BJP-friendly narratives go unchallenged.

Today, many countries with democratic traditions find that tradition under assault. Modi’s contempt for democratic norms echoes that of President Trump and Hungary’s Viktor Orban.

The politics of fearmongering are staples in most right-wing populist campaigns, including

those supporting Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte. Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński has exerted similar pressure on the judiciary. Modi most closely resembles Turkish strongman Recep Erdogan, who rose to power as a reformer and has since tightened his grip on Turkey by using security as an excuse to persecute opponents and restrict Turkey’s media while rallying supporters around his vision of Islam.

This slide is not inevitable. Indians can still reclaim their democracy, and the diaspora has a part to play. After Modi’s first victory, he toured the world speaking to sold-out crowds of Indians at New York’s Madison Square Garden and Sydney’s Allphones Arena. Like the millions of Indians who voted for him, these Indians abroad were buoyed by the promise of a more robust and reform-minded government. Indians in the diaspora should now try to square Modi’s actions with their own values. It is easy for Indians living abroad to be flippantly hawkish and nationalist, since they don’t have to live with the consequences of that dismissiveness. Modi and this BJP government stand for the supremacy of Hindu nationalism, not the flourishing of India. Indians abroad must speak out against xenophobia, authoritarianism, and racist violence, which would never be tolerated at home.

Continued support for Mr. Modi’s India is hypocrisy that enables those who are actively threatening India’s existence as a pluralist democracy.

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

31

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | International

SEGREGATION IN THE WEST BANK: THE CASE OF HEBRON

Anjali Vishwanath

T

he lively marketplace of Hebron resembles the souqs of other Palestinian cities, with people crowding the narrow streets, stands selling shawarma and falafel every twenty feet, kids running around, and friends meeting for tea and argeelah in cafes. You would think you were in the old city of Nablus or even some parts of Ramallah—until you look up and see metal nets installed above the market, a constant reminder of the segregation in the center of Hebron.

Layers of trash sit upon the metal nets.

“Sometimes, they throw feces and urine down at us as well,” my friend and tour guide Abdallah, who lives in Hebron, tells me. The acrid smell lingers.

“They” refers to the small community of settlers who live within the city lines of Hebron. Israeli settlements—civilian Jewish communities illegally built upon the West Bank territory which is ostensibly under Palestinian control—typically overlook major Palestinian cities from geographic high points. But the story is different in Hebron, where settlers reside in the city center alongside the Palestinian citizens.

According to tradition, Hebron houses the tombs of biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah.

Because of these figures’ great significance in Judaism, Hebron was actually home to a small Jewish community before the 20th century, constituting about three percent of the city’s population. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, this small Sephardi Jewish community had peacefully lived alongside their Arab neighbors for centuries.

However, demographics changed in the early 1900s. Ashkenazi (native European) Jews started to arrive in Palestine, separating themselves from the Arabs and even the Sephardi Jews who already lived there. As the Zionist agenda advanced, more Ashkenazis sought to annex the territory, and the Palestinian residents of Hebron grew angry.

32

In 1929, members of the Palestinian community began a riot in Hebron. Many Palestinian families did try to help by providing shelter to their Jewish neighbors, saving around two-thirds of the community. By the end of the riot, however, 67 Jews had been murdered. In response, the British (who were in charge of the Mandate at the time) evacuated the surviving Jewish community to Jerusalem. For many Zionists, this massacre exemplified, if not proved, the persecution they faced from Arabs, and fueled their desire to retake Hebron.

is known to Jews as The Cave of the Patriarchs).

Prior to the massacre, the murderer, Baruch Goldstein, had apparently already assaulted Muslim worshippers in the mosque and poured acid on prayer rugs. Muslim authorities alerted then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, but his office never responded. Following the massacre, Israeli authorities took drastic measures to protect the settlers from Palestinian retaliation. They closed the major street of the city center and forced Palestinian shopkeepers on that street to close their shops, which were then physically blocked

When I asked Abdullah how many soldiers there were, he replied, "10 to every 1 settler."

The population became relatively homogenous in Hebron, and tensions died down in the following decades—until 1967. In the beginning of June of that year, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel under the pretense that Israel was about to strike Syria.

After six days, Israel gained control of the West Bank from the Jordanians (who annexed the territory in the 1948 War), East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. These seizures began what we now call the Occupation, and triggered the Israeli settlement movement.

by the Israeli army. A “round-the-clock” curfew was imposed on Palestinian residents; Israeli authorities regularly enforced these long curfews when a settler attacked a Palestinian. They established military checkpoints throughout the city center. Today, there are 18 permanent military checkpoints and, according to the Institute for Middle East Understanding, there are over 120 obstacles hindering Palestinians from moving around freely.

After the 1967 War and the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, a group of Jewish fundamentalists rented rooms in a hotel in the city center of Hebron and refused to leave.

Israeli authorities then established a settlement in Hebron, and in the following years, more and more settlements were built, including several in the busy downtown area. To protect these settlers, heavily-armed Israeli soldiers were assigned to the city.

These restrictions “encouraged” Palestinians to leave the city center. With the center abandoned, more settlers arrived. In 1997, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel signed the Hebron Agreement, which divided Hebron into two areas: H1 and H2. H1 was placed under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, while Israel was responsible for the security of H2 (which included the city center). At the time, 35,000 Palestinians and 500 settlers were living in H2.

In 1994, a settler from Brooklyn massacred 29 praying Muslims in downtown Hebron at the Ibrahimi Mosque (the mosque is said to be built over the tombs of Abraham and his family and

As I walked through the city center (alone, since Abdallah, a Palestinian resident, was forbidden from accessing this area), I realized why the neighborhood is called a “ghost town.” This

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | International

formerly vibrant commercial center of the southern West Bank has been abandoned, with all the shops lining the streets welded shut. I encountered only a handful of individuals on the street—settlers, some openly carrying firearms. I avoided the stares of soldiers watching my every move. (When I asked Abdallah how many soldiers there were, he replied, “10 to every 1 settler.”

While I don’t know if this is an accurate number, there were certainly more soldiers than settlers).

I stopped to read the many plaques fastened to buildings explaining the history of Judaism in Hebron and the discrimination they face. Almost all discussed the 1929 massacre and none mentioned the 1994 massacre.

center of Hebron, their lives have been disrupted by the settlements, and they now face harassment and discrimination every day.

In the settlers’ perspective, they have a right to live around the tombs of some of their most revered religious figures. The settlers feel they need to be protected. They argue that they are living in a ghetto, because they cannot visit other areas of Hebron. I think it is reasonable to want to live in peace in a religiously significant place, just as the small community of Jews did for centuries before the 1900s. However, their framework of occupation is an unacceptable method by which they have inserted (and continue to insert) themselves into the city.

however, since the State of Israel would keep 70 percent of Mandate Palestine). But the Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank, beyond the Green Line, have complicated the situation.

The dispersal of these settlements has made it impossible to draw clear, sensible borders. The settlers refuse to move and the Israeli government would, seemingly, never force these settlers to relocate. And thus, tensions remain high.

And these tensions are clearest in Hebron, where settlers and Palestinians clash every day.

Israel continues to allow the construction of more settlements in the West Bank. The settlement in Hebron is unique but also poignantly represents how Israeli authorities disregard Palestinian lives

Israel’s oppressive and illegal (under international law) policies and actions neglect the human element; instead, they serve to create “facts on the ground” that sustain Israel’s repressive occupation and encourage a “forced transfer” of Palestinians.

Yes, there is violence from both settlers and Palestinians living in Hebron, which should be condemned. But the settlers chose to occupy a Palestinian city, whereas the Palestinians were forced from their homes. These settlers didn’t come and inhabit abandoned houses. They invaded and still continue to invade homes and evict the families living there. Now, the few Palestinian families who live in the downtown area are afraid to leave their houses, in fear that settlers will take them over. The IDF have set up checkpoints and fences, effectively locking up the Palestinians, and open them according to their moods. Palestinians have to take roundabout routes in order to get to their homes if they live around the center. These policies are painted as a security issue, but they actually seek to force the Palestinians out and erase their claims to the land.

For Palestinians who have managed to stay in the

The international community considers settlements such as the one in Hebron illegal under international law. The Geneva Conventions, which were established and accepted after World War II, state in their fourth convention that an occupying power is forbidden from “deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This rule primarily functions to guarantee that an occupation is temporary and allows for a solution to the conflict.

One of the major issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is borders. For a two-state solution to be possible, clear borders need to be delineated.

In the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Talks, Israel and Jordan decided on the Green Line, which separates Israel from the West Bank. Most demands for a Palestinian state focus on the “borders of 1967”—the Green Line (this is still a concession,

for the sake of their own agenda. Their oppressive and illegal (under international law) policies and actions neglect the human element; instead, they serve to create “facts on the ground” that sustain their repressive occupation and encourage a “forced transfer” of Palestinians. And as long as these hegemonic structures exist—in Hebron, settlers make up 1 percent of the city’s population, yet they wield an inordinate amount of political power—the coexistence and peace that existed before the 1900s (or even a fraction of it) cannot be restored.

Anjali Vishwanath ‘19 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at anjali.vishwanath@wustl.edu.

33

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | International

TWELVE TOO MANY Arjun Joshi | Illustration courtesy of Maggie Chuang

O

n May 14, the Gaza protests hit fever pitch as the United States opened its new embassy compound in Jerusalem.

Israeli security forces killed 62 people during a Palestinian attempt to storm the fences. A Hamas spokesperson confirmed later that 50 of those victims were members of Hamas, which is internationally recognized as a terrorist organization.

To put it mildly, responses to the clashes were polarizing. Pro-Palestine activists declared on Twitter that the clashes were murder, not a security measure. Most of these hot takes were tweeted before Hamas released its statement, but many of these advocates either didn’t amend their statements or only corrected them once their followers pressured them to do so.

The pro-Israel movement, on the other hand, explained that the deaths were tragic, but necessary given Israel’s precarious security situation in the region. In the eyes of Israel and its defenders, the 12 extra casualties were collateral damage in the ongoing fight for her protection.

But that still leaves 12 victims who weren’t Hamas members. Those are 12 individuals forgotten by both sides. They weren’t potential terrorists trying to breach the fence to inflict harm on Israel, just civilians protesting for basic necessities. But in the process of defending their country from potential terrorists, Israeli security forces gunned down innocent people, who leave behind family and friends who are also stuck in Gaza with an untenable situation: either die facing down an Israeli gun, starve to death from a blockade, or be executed by Hamas for holding a different opinion.

But it’s not just protestors and militants dying in the name of security. On June 2, Israeli forces shot and killed a Palestinian medic named Razan al-Najjar while he tended to wounded protestors.

Once again responses were mixed: a UN Security Council resolution condemning the “excessive, disproportionate, and indiscriminate force” used

by Israel against the Palestinians was vetoed by the U.S. for being “one-sided.” While the U.S. has criticized the UN for anti-Israel bias in the past, this resolution doesn’t seem out of place.

After all, an internationally-recognized norm in

34

conflict zones is the safety of medical staff, and the careless death of a medic embarrasses Israel and sets a precedent for Hamas reprisals against Israeli medics.

Israel may be a Jewish state, but it was founded on the belief that all people have the right to life and liberty, regardless of race, color, class, or creed. The government’s failure to address whether the presence in Gaza is military or police in nature leads to problems like these, because while policing is supposed to protect the community and ensure the people’s safety, a military occupation is meant to permanently end threats regardless of the cost to the community. Israel has the right to defend itself, but it does not have the right to be blasé about civilian casualties. Putting aside the fact that Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade and thus should have been prepared for protests, this specific episode was just the latest in months of border protests, and thus Israel should have been doubly prepared to respond to both civilian and Hamas infiltrators. The 12 victims protested because they were seeking their basic human needs, and instead found death and indifference.

When people become indifferent to these tragedies with statements like “This has been happening forever,” that’s a sign that this needs to be a tipping point. Too many people have died in the conflict between Israel and Palestinian-Arabs, and whether we count from 1947, 1967, 2005, or today, the death toll is this: too many. At the end of the day, we have two problems that need a resolution: Israel must show compassion and allow necessities like food, water, and medicine

to arrive and alleviate tensions with the civilians of Gaza, but Hamas must also stop encouraging conflict and violence against Israelis.

Hamas is not free of blame: the rocket attacks and terror campaigns against Israel’s citizens can’t go unresolved, but killing protestors is not the way to fight Hamas. Israel has to win the hearts-and-minds campaign to make sure Hamas doesn’t have the opportunity to use protests against Israel. Going forward it must be mindful of how civilians are used to shield those terrorists. While it’s unfair that Israel is forced to be the compassionate and pragmatic party in a situation where the deck is stacked against it, the very pillars of Israeli society are built on compassion for the downtrodden and oppressed, and policy should reflect those underpinnings.

Israel must be the bigger person in this situation not only because it is the right thing to do, but because such actions create goodwill in Palestinians and Arab neighbors alike, paving the way for a less contentious future. Once you stop firing on civilians, they tend to be less aggressive.

Arjun Joshi ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at arjunjoshi@wustl.edu.

WU POLITICAL REVIEW | International

Theme Art by Audrey Palmer

35

Want to see yourself in our next issue?

Join us for our first meeting to learn more about the WUPR community.

September 6, 7 p.m.

Print Media Suite (Third Floor of the DUC) Or, to get involved now, visit wupr.org/contribute