Gender by Washington University Political Review

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

POLITICAL

REVIEW 32.3 | April 2020 | wupr.org

Table of Contents Gender

Latin Chivalry v. Music What's Right? Claudia Bermudez

Theme Art Haejin An

National

The Trump Presidency: Through the Eyes of Monica Lewinsky Frances Wu

Can You be an American Woman and Apoliticial? Ryan Martirano

Theme Art Caroline Weinstein

Theme Art Shonali Palacios

On Feminism Jordan Coley

The Myth of the Latino Vote Christian Monzรณn

Sweet, Sweet Privacy Natalie Snyder

The Fear of Encryption Clare Grindinger

Wearing My Womanhood Gabriela Senno

Lessons to Learn from the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Jaden A. Lanza

The Phenomena of Gender Reveal Parties Megan Orlanski

Theme Art Merry May Ma

8M: More than a Women's March Sienna Ruiz & Mรณnica Unzueta

Editors' Note Executive Director Ishaan Shah Editors-in-Chief Hanna Khalil Sophie Attie Design Director Catherine Ju Staff Editors Jaden A. Lanza Max Lichtenstein Christian Monzón Rohan Palacios Features Editors Nick Massenburg Megan Orlanski Assistant Design Directors Leslie Liu Jinny Park Programming Director Liza Sivriver Treasurer Clare Grindinger Web Editor Adler Bowman Web Assistant Editor Yanny Liang Front Cover Haejin An Theme Spread Arushee Agrawal Feature Designs Catherine Ju Leslie Liu Jinny Park

Dear Readers, From the moment we are born, every single one of us is reduced to a label. The first question our parents were often asked about us is, "Is it a boy or a girl?" These are markers that none of us are exempt from. And yet, how we choose to define ourselves as we grow into ourselves is a spectrum of fluidity that reaches far beyond just two constricting categories. With the topic of Gender, WUPR aims to explore the different ways in which we present ourselves to the world, and consequently, how the world views and treats us based on these classifications. Actions that most of us rarely question in our day to day lives, such as wearing a dress or putting on a pair of boxers, shaving our legs or trimming our beards, or even a trip to the bathroom, all have implications that relate to the genders we are assigned, conform to, or identify with. The political repercussions of such choices are endless. No matter the role of gender in our lives, these inescapable traits define us everywhere we go. In this issue of WUPR, our writers explored, challenged, and exposed the many facets of gender with care and nuance. In her article, Frances Wu analyzes the role of gender within the handling of sexual misconduct under the Clinton and Trump administrations. Taking an international approach, Sienna Ruiz and Mónica Unzueta compare the “celebration” of International Women’s Day in Spain and Bolivia, highlighting the work of feminist activists using the day to advocate for an end to gender-based violence. Megan Orlanski tackles the growing phenomenon of “gender reveal parties,” showcasing the trend’s founder’s own evolving perspective on their legitimacy and the potential for harm that they pose. Furthermore, two of our features provide compelling examples of how the personal is political through poetry. Gabi Senno reflects on her journey of defining and affirming what womanhood means to her. Jordan Coley tracks the way she has worked to reconcile her blackness with dominant, exclusionary narratives of white feminism. As usual, our writers also contributed pieces not directly related to our theme, exploring a wide range of topics of national and international importance. Jaden Lanza reflects on the lessons that can be learned from how the United States reacted to the accusations of the Trump administration’s collusion with Russia in 2016. Clare Grindinger explores the role of encryption within combating the proliferation of child pornography. Lastly, looking towards the 2020 election, Christian Monzón unpacks the notion of a unified “Latino Vote.” These are just a few of the various topics tackled by our writers. While reading this issue we hope you will take some time to reflect upon how Gender ignites you, surrounds you, and defines you in this complex world we live in. Warmly, Hanna Khalil and Sophie Attie Editors-in-Chief

WU Political Review

Latin Chivalry v. Music: What’s Right? Claudia Bermudez

s far back as I can recall, my dad always opened and closed the passenger car door for my mom before getting in himself. Coming from a Colombian household, this type of behavior was routine and, most importantly, expected. Even when he couldn’t open the door, my dad would send me as a proxy to open the door for my mom. Often, this was followed by comments from my mom praising my dad for his chivalry. My time in Colombia only further hammered home this shared Latin American cultural value of the importance of chivalry and machismo. Machismo teaches little boys to open the doors for their mothers and young men to “protect” women through robust masculinity. Chivalry and machismo, however, often do not translate to respect and equality for Latin American women. Revered music genres such as Reggaeton and Mariachi are shining examples of the influence of sexism within Latin America. The messages disseminated in Latin American music highlight the far-reaching gap between its deeply ingrained chivalry and contrasting reality of casual sexism. Aside from the entirely gendered Spanish and Portuguese languages, machismo and chivalry are already dispersed throughout Latin America as foundational blocks of the culture. As Colombian feminist Catalina Ruiz-Navarro told the BBC—in an article exposing sexism in Latin America—“Men in Latin America are often proud of being machista and many women like their ‘protective’ macho men.” This machismo presents itself as unequivocally expected acts of chivalry towards women. Unfortunately, machismo and chivalry are not synonymous with respect towards women. Although chivalry generally has positive connotations, this behavior inherently requires male dominance over women and demands eternal gratitude from women for basic acts of politeness. Dominant demeanors towards women are so prevalent that a Gallup survey from 2014 ranked Latin America last (out of Asia, Europe, former Soviet countries, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East

“Men in Latin America are often proud of being machista and many women like their ‘protective’ macho men.” and North Africa) when it came to treating women with dignity and respect. The embodiment of the sexism created by chivalry and machismo in Latin America? Music. Reggaeton, a popular genre of Latin music, especially amongst teens, uses catchy beats and talks about sex from the male perspective. Anything else—and there is little else—is peripheral. Despite its great potential to promote social justice—having emerged from working-class Puerto Ricans—Reggaeton has gone in the complete opposite direction. Undeterred by modern efforts to grow and revolutionize the genre by a select few, one thing that remains stubbornly constant is Reggaeton’s rampant objectification of women. Consider Maluma’s lyrics in his song Cuatro Babys (Four Babies): “I’m in love with 4 babys. They always give me what I want. They f*** when I tell them to. None of them give me a ‘but’.” Throughout the song, Maluma describes women as interchangeable bodies; readily available at the service of the unlimited, unrestrainable, and uncontrollable sexual desires of men. In Cuatro Babys, Maluma emphasizes the everpresent theme of Reggaeton: women are only vessels helping men achieve pleasure. Ozuna’s Me Dijeron (They Told Me) has an even more apparent attitude of assumed dominance

over women. In this song, Ozuna tells an unnamed woman “They told me that you wanted to see me… Just like me, you want to eat me. They told me you aren’t happy with him. There’s nothing wrong with that, come have a good time with me.” With absolutely no respect or regard for this woman’s relationship, Ozuna spends the entire song begging the woman to let him “feel her.” Reggaeton songs often treat women as objects to conquer—generally to have sex—instead of as three-dimensional figures that should be treated with respect and viewed as more than sex objects. It could be refuted that—although problematic—these types of Reggaeton songs are not necessarily “sexist,” but Reggaeton also crosses the line from machista values into clear sexism. Arcangel’s Bellaquera (Horniness) has zingers such as “I’m going to pound you in the Kitchen. You want to, I want to, let’s stop talking.” For Reggaeton aficionados, it seems impossible to find a song that doesn’t objectify women, promote machismo, or sprinkle sexist lyrics throughout. To be clear, however, grotesque sexism in Latin America is not uniquely in Reggaeton. Mariachi, sometimes referred to as “Latin country music,” also overflows with sexism and machismo. Because Mariachi originated in Mexico, a country with a poor record on women’s rights where women didn’t have the right to vote until 1953, it’s not entirely surprising that Mariachi music is deeply interwoven with machismo. Mariachi was originally meant to symbolize machismo and Latin concepts of masculinity through tales of love and heartbreak. Machista themes in Mariachi or Ranchera music (a variation of Mariachi that is recognized by the incorporation of the guitar) are so common that Ranchera legend, Vicente Fernandez, even sports a full Mariachi outfit along with a gun strapped on his waist in his most of his music videos. Although Vicente Fernandez’s songs generally talk about his experiences in love and heartbreak, he did have the occasional hit taking

Gender

ownership of his macho energy. In El Rey (The King), Fernandez’s machismo is on full display as he sings “With money or without money, I always do what I want and my word is the law. I don’t have a throne or a queen, or anyone who understands me. But I’m still the King.” Unfortunately, for avid Mariachi fans (such as myself) this sort of machismo throughout the genre is something that listeners simply have to accept if they want to keep listening. However, Mariachi music is culpable of more than just machismo. Pedro Fernandez’s Yo Soy El Aventurero (I am the Adventurer), also takes an extra step by filling the song with outright sexist phrases. Yo Soy El Aventurero begins with “Abused mamacitas your adventurer is here.” Throughout the rest of the song Fernandez sings about what types of women he likes—which unsurprisingly means every type of woman: “I Like tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, fat and small ones, single and widowed and divorced ones… I also want them to have brothers that aren’t jealous and boyfriends that are ugly.” Fernandez also includes instructions as to how he wants to meet these women: “I am the adventurer and I say to my mothers-in-law, If you bring your daughters make sure they are well taken care of or I won’t respond.” Clearly, Fernandez has no restrictions or reservations when it comes to expressing his desires and exacting instructions on how he wants them met; behavior that is found throughout the entire genre of Mariachi or Ranchera music. Skeptics might say that Vicente and Pedro Fernandez represent the older generation of mariachi, and not the new “diverse and inclusive” wave currently hitting the genre, but younger Mariachi and Rancheras singers still uphold machista values in their music. In Christian Nodal’s No Te Contaron Mal (They Didn’t Tell You Wrong), Nodal tells his girlfriend of his infidelity by saying “Yes I was with someone else. What’s it to you, it’s not like it was in your bathroom. What do you have to say about it? It wasn’t a lot. It was just one. And if I was drunk it was your fault anyways.

Although chivalry generally has positive connotations, this behavior inherently requires male dominance over women and demands eternal gratitude from women for basic acts of politeness. And at the end of the day, one is the same as none.” Throughout the song, Christian blames his girlfriend for him cheating on her and repeatedly asks what the big deal is. Despite his musical genius, Nodal is proof of the sexism’s legacy even in modern Mariachi music. Unfortunately, machismo exists mariachi music despite monumental efforts of minority groups to break through the challenges they face in this male-dominated arena. In 2014, the all-female “Mariachi Divas” went on to become the first mariachi ever (men or women) to win a second Grammy. In 2015, an L.A-based group called “Mariachi Arcoiris de Los Ángeles” broke barriers by featuring the world’s first trans Mariachi. However, these efforts have not been enough to change the machista associations with mariachi. Even Google lists nine out of the ten first results under “famous mariachi singers” as men. Unfortunately, this conception of Mariachi needing to be male dominated is reflective of the Latin

machista culture of its listeners. Since Latino listeners prefer to hear the historically male-dominated version of Mariachi, it makes it harder for singers who deviate from this standard to break into Mariachi and produce songs that wouldn’t regurgitate back the same machista ideals that listeners now commonly possess. Although these songs only provide a minuscule glimpse at sexism embedded in Latin genres, most Latin music will fit into some sort framework either objectifying women or putting women down in order to project machismo. To be clear, however, the problem with machismo and sexism within Latin America is more than just the protective and chivalrous aspect of it; it’s the way that men are expected to be strong and aggressive, which inevitably brings out disrespectful behavior towards women. The thin line between the good and bad of chivalry— and more specifically machismo within Latin America—can be confusing and make it difficult for family, friends, and the culture in general to correct this behavior. If Latin America continues to inject such corrupted machismo and continues to romanticize chivalrous ideals into its society and culture (like through music)—to the point where sexist ideals in the region are the norm—sexism and gender inequality in the region will never be defeated. Although I never expect or want my dad to get out of the habit of opening the door for my mom, I do hope that one day the negative behavior tied to machismo and chivalry will stop.

Claudia Bermudez ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at claudia. bermudez@wustl.edu.

WU Political Review

Gender

Artwork by Haejin An, staff artist

WU Political Review

The Trump Presidency: Through the Eyes of Monica Lewinsky Frances Wu Artwork (right) by Shonali Palacios, staff artist

n January 21, 1998, the biggest scandal of the decade broke news. Allegations of sexual conduct between intern Monica Lewinsky and then President Bill Clinton destroyed her reputation while barely scratching his. In fact, Clinton’s approval ratings reached its highest point at 73% after his impeachment proceedings, and he finished his second term at a strong 66%. For Monica Lewinsky, the story followed her for decades. She writes, “In 1998, … I was arguably the most humiliated person in the world. Thanks to the Drudge Report, I was also possibly the first person whose global humiliation was driven by the Internet.” From the betrayal of her confidant Linda Tripp, to the explicit details of sexual conduct listed in the Starr Report, to the trial where she was made to submit her dress with Clinton’s bodily fluids stained on it, to an interview for an 2001 HBO documentary where she was asked how it felt “to be America’s premier blow-job queen,” to the years after where she faced armies of faceless bullies and harassers on the Internet, Monica Lewinsky has paid more than her share of consequences. It’s not hard to imagine how incredibly frustrating and unfair the entirety of the Trump presidency is in comparison. President Donald J. Trump is no stranger to sexual assault allegations. Twenty-five women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct to date, including Ivana Trump, President Trump’s ex-wife, who accused Trump of raping her in a fit of rage after tearing her clothes and hair. Mariah Billado, Victoria Hughes, Tasha Dixon, and Bridget Sullivan all came forward with claims that Trump had walked into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms while they were changing. E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a department store dressing room. Trump has not yet faced any repercussions or punishment for any of these incidents. He’s claimed that these women “took money in

President Donald J. Trump is no stranger to sexual assault allegations. order to say bad things” to dismiss these allegations against him, and it seems that was enough for many Americans. The #MeToo movement has finally brought desperately needed changes to the way sexual assault is treated, yet to have the President of the United States, one of the most powerful men in the world, deny the validity of sexual assault survivors is immensely terrifying. Moreover, Trump’s “grab ‘em by the pussy!” is not only revolting, but incredibly disheartening when many of his supporters, some of them women, proudly display signs with the same “slogan.” Despite Harvey Weinstein, the epicenter of the #MeToo movement, recently having been convicted with rape and criminal sex acts, there’s still many more influential men who face accusations yet still stand untouched. Why has Trump, for example, not been as ruthlessly persecuted as Lewinsky? Monica Lewinsky herself has been incredibly vocal on the matter. Now a Twitter activist, she often advocates for anti-bullying campaigns and the #MeToo movement. It would understate her hatred to say that she’s not Trump’s biggest fan. With Trump’s recent impeachment proceedings, Lewinsky tweeted “Gee, too bad I had to give that videoed witness testimony for the senate trial in the Clinton impeachment. (I mean, talk about unflattering lighting and having a bad hair day)” in response to Republican Senator Lamar Alexander’s statement that he will not vote to hear witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial.

Recall, Trump’s impeachment was on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after accused of soliciting foreign influence in the 2020 presidential election and ignoring House subpoenas for documents and testimonies. In the Senate trial, no witnesses or documents were subpoenaed. In a grand twist of irony, Ken Starr, the man responsible for doggedly investigating and exposing Monica Lewinsky’s relationship with Bill Clinton, joined President Trump’s impeachment defense team. Lewinsky appropriately tweeted, “this is definitely an ‘are you f—ing kidding me?’ kinda day.” Her exasperation is completely justified. Starr serves as an apt representation of how differently Lewinsky and Trump, one a witness and one the defendant, received different treatment in their respective impeachment trials. It really begs the question: What is more important? A stained dress, or preserving democracy? It’s not a stretch to say the linchpin to the disparities between these two individuals is misogyny. The complete lack of respect for Monica Lewinsky as a human being throughout the trial proceedings and thereafter cemented the fact that women are granted a fraction of the leniency rewarded to men. In my time researching for this article, I’ve come across a multitude of comments completely invalidating Lewinsky’s opinions, feelings, and arguments for a mistake she made when she was 23. Over two decades, three different presidents, and a separate impeachment trial later, Monica Lewinsky is still the butt of internet jokes and barbed attacks, and Trump is on a steady track towards re-election. Voting is now more important than ever. Frances Wu ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at frances.w.wu @ wustl.edu.

Gender

WU Political Review

Jordan Coley ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at jordancoley@wustl.edu.

I am nine years old I don’t know much about the world, but I know I love to read The library becomes a safe space, A space for the inner workings of my brain to come alive I walk into the library and pick up a graphic novel on Elizabeth Cady Stanton My fourth grade brain doesn’t know much about feminism, but I know My mom tells me it’s a good thing It’s about equality, it’s about uplifting women, She says. Elizabeth Cady Stanton is a feminist I think she’s a role model. Halfway through the book she says Why should the negro men be allowed to vote before white women? I’d rather cut my arm off than let them have the right to vote I am nine years old and I don’t know much about the world but I know I am Black The pieces of the puzzle haven’t put themselves together yet, But something in me tightens, Feels like Stanton’s feminism displaces me Where does my Black skin fall in the sphere of her movement? Where do Black women find a safe space In white feminism? I am nineteen years old I don’t know much about the world, but I know more than I did in my fourth grade library I know the word intersectionality, And I know that feminism isn’t feminism without it But suddenly I’m walking into the room and All of the women are applauding themselves because they are Empowered women! But all of the women are white, And I Am suddenly feeling disempowered, Displaced In my Blackness, Their words are welcoming But the environment is not

Gender

What is feminism if not inclusive? What is white feminism if not oppressive? I am nineteen years old and I still love to read After leaving the room, I read about Alice Walker’s Womanism This brand of feminism makes space for duality And Blackness And queerness And radical politics And an abundance of love that I’m not used to, but I want more of Her words become a safe space. I am nineteen years old and I don’t know much but I know I will not return to a room that does not save a space for me And white feminism does not Feminism is more than just smiling with other women about empowerment It is more than wearing a vagina hat reading Pussy Power! Real feminism is intersectional. It makes space for Black and brown and queer bodies It deconstructs institutional racism and white privilege It is aware of capitalism, imperialism, and class privilege It is measured action And it holds space for everyone. Intersectional feminism accepts that we are all still learning And unlearning And that there is always room for growth When you walk into a room of intersectional feminists, You are not the only one of your race You are not alone You are not displaced. I am nineteen years old And I still don’t know much but I know Intersectional feminism empowers me, And as I learn more about how to truly fight for equity I find a new safe space, One that embraces me in my entirety.

WU Political Review

"Sweet, Sweet Privacy" by Natalie Snyder, staff artist

we a r i n g m y wo ma n h o o d G a b r i e l a S en n o Des i g n by Ca t h e r i n e J u ,

d e s i g n d i r ec to r

My womanhood wears me like a skirt too tight in the wintertime, muscles shrinking into the claustrophobic cloth, too cold to believe that a woman is still inside of it My womanhood suffocates, each leg crammed in, worn out like each letter of my name by the men who say it My womanhood slowly disintegrates. My womanhood wears me either two sizes too small or two sizes oversized, hidden within the shameful folds of fickle fabric or overly exposed to the scolds of the frostbitten, unforgiving season that unfolds My womanhood never fits into the cinnamon-colored skin I was born in; My womanhood is tired of trying. My womanhood wears me between strands of un-plucked eyebrows and un-shaven armpits, praised for being “all-natural,” but still not saved from the measurement of an admirer’s gaze My womanhood is not on display. My womanhood wears me like a roadmap of stretch marks mimicking the way my capillaries internally lay left behind, forgotten pieces of a puzzled picture, reminders of the person trapped inside of me My womanhood is not free. My womanhood wears me in the blisters of my high-heeled shoes sore, scabbed over from being expected to walk confidently while in pain My womanhood should not be in pain, yet My womanhood wears me overwhelmed by weight too impossible to carry on shoulders that are just starting to become strong enough to bear it Instead of my womanhood wearing me, I should wear my womanhood, but to be a woman means to embrace all of your contradictions, which only now I am beginning to see. G a b r i e l a S en n o ‘ 2 2 s t u d i es i n t h e Co l l e g e o f A r t s & S c i en ces . S h e ca n b e re a c h e d a t g a b i sen n o @ w u s t l . e d u .

WU Political Review

Megan Orlanski, features editor Design by Jinny Park, assistant design director family waits expectantly as a knife is held over a supposedly unassuming cake. What secrets does the buttercream hold? What sweet confection will spill out from the inner depths of the layered dessert? But as everyone peers in to see what color emerges, blue or pink, a bigger question is at hand; will the expectant parent(s) be having a girl or a boy? This scene is typical for many Gender Reveal Parties, or as they have come to be known colloquially, ‘gender reveals’. These are events dedicated to discovering the sex —gender being a misnomer since people are only looking at biological characteristics— of the unborn child. Cutting into cakes is one of the milder ways in which this cultural phenomenon has manifested itself. But more extreme variations have come as a result of this viral trend. They include fireworks, firing guns, and an explosion that even led to a massive wildfire in Arizona in 2017 that burned over 47,000 acres of land according to CNN. The trend has gained massive traction over the past few years, but is actually believed to have started over a decade ago. In 2008, Jenna Karvunidis threw a gender reveal party, wrote a post about it for her blog, and observed the trend grow as a result. Karvunidis is credited with being the ‘inventor’ of the gender reveal party. Shortly after in 2011, videos of gender reveals began to surface on YouTube, according to the Huffington Post. While Karvunidis’ party featured the aforementioned cutting into the cake to reveal pink frosting, a seemingly harmless act, some

gender reveal parties have morphed into events bearing the title “Guns or Glitter,” “Touchdowns or Tutus,” and “Rifles or Ruffles,” just to name a few. While there are only three words in each of these titles, they leave many issues to be unpacked. Firstly, the restrictivenature of binaries that is present in gender reveal parties as a whole is harmful to individuals and children who identify as non-binary, gender non-conforming, and as transgender. Additionally, the inherent sexism that places an achievement, for example a touchdown, in association with a man, while placing a tulle garment, a tutu, in association with a woman, is reductive and limits the perceived capabilities of the child before they are even born. It is also worth highlighting the presence of weapons both in the names of these events and also in the actual gender reveal itself (people shooting guns at targets or projectiles with colored powder), although I will not dive into a debate on firearms in this article. And as I mentioned previously, the use of the term “gender” is a misnomer because

according to Oxford Dictionary, gender, beyond simply referring to a binary, refers to “a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.” Gender theorist, Judith Butler, writes “Masculine and feminine roles are not biologically fixed but socially constructed.” It’s clearly visible how these roles are being imposed onto these children before they are even born, categorizing them and prescribing them into conditioned binaries before they can make their own decisions regarding their gender identity. Still, amidst these problematic aspects of gender reveal parties, it is important to note that the conditions under which Karvunidis decided to celebrate the sex of her child. In an interview with The Guardian in 2019, she discussed how she suffered several miscarriages, and thus wanted to celebrate her

Gender

pregnancy. At the time she said she thought: “Oh, yay, I’m finally at a point in my pregnancy where I know if it’s a boy or a girl.” For individuals who have experienced difficulties conceiving, gender reveal parties can become a celebration of overcoming obstacles. Yet, over the years Karvundis has changed her opinions on the trend of gender reveal parties she helped popularize. Ten years after her original blog post, Karvundis commented that her daughter, who she originally threw the gender reveal party for, now dresses in suits and doesn’t conform to traditional gender norms. Karvundis reflects that this made her reconsider the implications that gender reveal parties have on individuals who are non-binary and hopes that people will begin to reconsider the over-emphasis that is placed on the sex of their child. Gender reveal parties seem to be

the product of a combination of factors: people looking for an excuse to throw a party, traditional gender binaries that remain prevalent in society today, the desire to do anything that will cause a buzz on social media, and even celebrities holding their own gender reveal parties. But I encourage people to reconsider their merit. Celebrating the upcoming birth of a child brings with it excitement and anticipation for their future potential, but it should not be limited by the color frosting on a cake or the confetti from a balloon. Focus on celebrating this potential beyond the gender your child may choose to identify with in the future or their sexual orientation. There are so many possibilities for future generations. Let us prioritize how we can make our world more inclusive and supportive for them, rather than simply “pink” or “blue.”

Megan Orlanski ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at morlanski@wustl. edu.

WU Political Review

8M: More than a Women’s March Sienna Ruiz, staff writer & Mónica Unzueta

n March 8th, women around the world participated in International Women’s Day (IWD). The day was first celebrated at the beginning of the 20th century as International Working Women’s Day, as evoked by International Socialist Women’s Conference in Copenhagen in 1910. In its early years, women who “celebrated” this day did so by marching, demanding suffrage rights, fair wages, and better working conditions. Since the United Nations began celebrating the day in 1975, however, the meaning of IWD began to shift in many parts of the world. The UN’s move to co-opt the day effectively stripped the day of its class connotations and gave the day a gendered focus that has lasted until now.

the coup against the people/ Women in the struggle against capitalism, patriarchy, racism, the clergy, and fascism.” The indigenous woman in the image holds a Whipala, a symbol of indigenous sovereignty used across the Andes. Over the past several months, the Whipala has been burned by supporters of the coup in a symbolic expulsion of the country’s indigenous leadership. In this way, 8M comes to signify a day of political struggle more broadly understood. Since

March 8th itself fell on a Sunday this year, most activists called for marches, interventions, and strikes on Monday the 9th in order to interrupt the workday. Bolivian feminists are making it clear that 8M is not just a day on which men should congratulate their mothers and sisters and wives with flowers. It is a day of resistance against interpersonal and state violence. Bolivian women challenge the day’s co-optation by re-politicizing 8M and infusing it with anti-racist and anti-capitalistic meaning.

In many parts of the Hispanic world, IWD still remains a contested site. Feminist activists fight to maintain a radical tilt to the day’s “celebrations,” while gender organizations often have a different vision for what the day should look like. In this article, we look closely at Spain and Bolivia as examples of the conflicts and coalitions that make up feminist organizing for International Women’s Day. In Bolivia, feminist activists have been preparing for IWD, or as they call it, “el 8M,” for months. In the midst of a global crisis of gender-based violence and increasing rates of femicide, the killing of women because they are women, feminist activists are using 8M to make demands for structural and cultural changes around the issue of violence. Activists rally in cities around the country, ring bells for victims of femicide, and perform “El Violador en Tu Camino” [the Rapist in Your Path], the protest song that originated in Chile last November and that has since been performed around the world. One eco-feminist collective, Las Salvajinas, maintains the focus on workers in their call for IWD protests. Additionally, their IWD activism is tied up in a struggle against the right-wing coup that precipitated in Bolivia in November last year. This poster, posted to their Twitter page in the week leading up to March 8th, reads, “Great march for International Working Women’s Day/ In the face of ultra-conservative advances and

Image taken from tweet shared by @Salvaginas on March 3rd, 2020

Gender

These large efforts, however, will only continue to perpetuate patriarchal systems if they continue to exclude the most marginalized women in Spain.

In Spain, the fight for a radical 8M is an uphill battle in a country where marches have typically focused more on white privileged women. Nadia Nadesan writes in her piece, “Making Space: Black and Womxn of Colour Feminist Activism in Madrid” that “during the huelga or the women’s strike on International Women’s Day demonstrations on 8 March 2018, womxn of colour were often invisibilized in terms of presence and discourse in the events leading up to and during the huelga.” While Madrid saw thousands of women arrive for the annual march in the capital city, it was not a march with as clear political messages as movements in Bolivia. As in other Hispanic countries, violence against women is a large unifying factor, but this does not create commitments to other causes like labor rights or inclusive immigration policies. There are various efforts in Madrid to tie 8M to institutional racism and the fight to maintain common spaces currently under fire from the newly elected conservative mayor. This Instagram post for the network of feminist collectives in Madrid advertises a protest against “institutional racism in the laws and the streets.” Smaller demonstrations lend politics to the day that is now characterized throughout the city by the spectacles of its marches or public art pieces. These large efforts, however, will only continue to perpetuate patriarchal systems if they continue to exclude the most marginalized women in Spain. From Spain to Bolivia, Mexico to Argentina, activists will take to the streets singing the chorus to “El violador en tu camino”: El estado opresor es un macho violador [The oppressive state is a rapist.] The performance implicates all systems that allow for violence against women to take place everywhere from the factory to the home to the street. The question remains whether 8M can retain this inherently political stance amidst the power of corporate and state feminisms. Todavía estamos luchando cuando enfrentamos el violador juntas en la calle sin ningún otro apoyo que la comunidad.

Sienna Ruiz and Mónica Unzueta are seniors in the Instagram post shared by @feminismosmadrid on February 29, 2020

College of Arts & Sciences. They can be reached at sienna.ruiz@wustl.edu and munzueta@wustl.edu.

CAN YOU BE AN AMERICAN WOMAN AND APOLITICAL? Ryan Martirano Artwork (right) by Leslie Liu, assistant design director artist

n the documentary “Miss Americana”, Taylor Swift takes us through the ups and downs of her career and what led her to partisan political activism. The driving force of this change was her gender, and how she was treated by the media, public and others because of her gender. Political activism was never a destination for Swift, but it did mean an end for her. An end to her relevance, her success, and her career. She watched it happen to the Dixie Chicks, and with her management, she polished herself into the image of the “nice girl”. The girl who doesn’t burden others with her opinions. The girl who quietly sits back and smiles. We’re taken along for the pit stops of Swift’s career: Kanye West interrupting her 2009 VMAs acceptance speech for Best Female Video, a subsequent feud with West and his wife, Kim Kardashian over West’s lyrics, and the #1 trending worldwide of #TaylorSwiftIsOverParty on Twitter. Rather than reading about the controversies in the tabloids, we are riding along with

Swift through the campaigns against her.

trophy tonight. I think lots of men…”.

We see West at a concert rapping the lyrics to his song “Famous”, he raps “I think me and Taylor might still have sex / Why? I made that bitch famous”. The crowd responds with chants of “Fuck Taylor Swift” to no dismissal of West. Headlines flash in large bold font that calling Swift a “liar” and saying that she “played the victim”. Tweets call her “calculated” and a “fake bitch”.

In part, this was the backfire of her image as the “nice girl”. Swift’s success in the music industry was second place to the sensationalist appeal of her sexuality as a young woman. Swift’s presentation of her body was not seen as anything but a “calculated” means of ensnaring men.

Swift remained in neutral throughout this denigration, opting to be “excluded from this narrative” in a 2016 Instagram post. So, what was the change for Swift? Countless articles have been published criticizing Swift’s womanhood through her dating history. At the 2016 Grammy Awards, the night Swift became the first female artist to win Album of the Year twice, Entertainment Tonight host Nancy O’Dell in an interview with Swift says, “I just wanted to show the legs … I think you're going to walk home with more than just a

Swift was sued for $3 million by the former radio DJ, David Mueller under the claim that her false accusations of groping led to his subsequent loss of his employment. Swift countersued for $1 in assault and battery. The woman the public besmirched as the “liar” was on trial to not only defend her allegations, but also her body. In 2017, Mueller’s case was dismissed and the jury ruled in favor of Swift, requiring the former radio DJ to pay the $1 in damages. In her testimony, Swift stated that, “He grabbed my ass underneath my skirt” and “I’m not going to let you or your client make me feel in any way that this is my fault”.

The woman who “played the victim” was believed. Swift was no longer apolitical. Swift explains that now “something is different in my life, completely and unchangeable different since the sexual assault trial last year”. The start of Swift’s partisan activism was the 2018 US Senate race in Tennessee between Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen. Swift announced that she was endorsing Governor Bredesen in an Instagram post a month prior to the November midterm, labeling his opponent Blackburn a “homophobic, racist.” When Blackburn wins the election, Swift is frustrated. Swift says, “She gets to be the first female senator in Tennessee and she’s – she’s Trump in a wig. She represents no female interests. She won by being a female applying to the kind of female males want us to be in a horrendous … 1950s world”.

SWIFT'S NARRATIVE HAS ALWAYS BEEN GENDERED, BUT INSTEAD OF THE "NICE GIRL" REMAINING SILENT, SHE WAS SPEAKING LOUDLY.

she was speaking loudly. In American society, women and their bodies are inherently political for Swift. Experience has taught her that the United States is a patriarchal system that presupposes that women are to be oppressed through their objectification and sexualization of their bodies. While it is necessary to challenge such a system, Swift is toeing a fine line. It is problematic for Swift to decide what a woman should think as a woman. In Swift denouncing the votes of Republican women, she is policing what is acceptable for a woman to stand behind. Can a woman be apolitical in our society? For Swift, the answer is no.

Ryan Martirano ‘21 studies in the College of Arts

Swift’s narrative has always been gendered, but instead of the “nice girl” remaining silent,

& Sciences and Olin Business School. He can be reached at rtmartirano@wustl.edu.

WU Political Review

Artwork by Caroline Weinstein, staff artist

Gender

Social distancing doesn't mean we're not connected. ad

Despite moving online through the COVID-19 pandemic, WUPR will continue receiving writing and art submissions for our final Wash U in St. Louis issue as well for our website.

To get involved in our next issue visit wupr.org/contribute

WU Political Review

Artwork by Shonali Palacios, staff artist

National

The Myth of the Latino Vote Christian Monzón, staff editor

fter the Nevada caucus, many declared Bernie Sanders the overwhelming favorite, and rightfully so. He completely obliterated his opponents in the most diverse state so far during the primary process, not only leading in delegates but imposing his authority on the still-large pool of candidates. It changed him from serious contender to, at the time, definitive front-runner—seemingly due to Latino voters. According to NBC News’s entrance polls during the caucus, he especially dominated the Latino and Hispanic vote with 50% support, with Joe Biden a distant second receiving 16%. Even among moderate Latinos, Sanders crushed his opposition—47% supported him, with Biden still second at 19%. With White and Black voters supporting him at just under 30% each, Latino voters clearly carried Bernie in Nevada. Pundits and politicians proceeded to declare Bernie the favorite among Latinos. It makes sense. Christine Bolaños, communications director for Jolt Action, a Texas-based group working to involve more young Latinos in politics, says that while Latinos are “growing in population and voter power, they’re increasingly inundated in debt and struggling with access to care,” which “automatically makes them gravitate towards someone who appears to address their priorities.” Sanders has made various inclusive campaign initiatives including Spanish-language ads and personally reaching out to working-class Latino families, and his message resonates with many Latino workingclass families. But exit polls from Texas, a crucial Super Tuesday state with a large Latino population, contradict the other-worldly results he achieved among Latino voters in Nevada. While still winning the Latino vote, CNN exit polls in Texas found that Bernie won over 39% of Texan Latinos— still dominant, but with Biden and Bloomberg garnering a combined 46%, Latinos favored Bernie’s Democratic revolution far less in Texas than in Nevada. Latino politicians in Texas, moreover, heavily supported centrist candidates like Biden or Bloomberg.

The difference between Texan and Nevadan Latinos marks an enormous hole in any candidates’ political strategy. While pundits and politicians usually insist on grouping Latino voters as one, huge monolithic voting bloc, they ignore fundamental differences and diversity within the Latino community.

New York’s Latino population—despite having the same percentage of non-Mexican Hispanics as Florida—significantly differs from both Florida and Nevada. Its Latino population consists of mostly Dominicans and Puerto Ricans—groups with vastly different experiences than either Cubans or Mexicans.

Latinos in Texas have very different experiences from Latinos in Nevada or other states. For example, in Nevada, 78% of Hispanics are of Mexican origin, according to the Pew Research Center. In Florida and New York, however, non -Mexicans composed 86% of the Hispanic population (“Hispanic” and “Latino” are not interchangeable, but since Pew Research Center used “Hispanic,” and it effectively marks a stark difference in cultural backgrounds between Latinos, I use it here). The Mexican/non-Mexican distinction can mean vastly different voting demographics between states like Nevada, Florida, and New York.

At the same time, nobody should generalize any Latin American diaspora. Mexicans and Dominicans more often leave behind poverty and violence (albeit usually through different means), while Cubans usually immigrate because the revolution threatened their privilege on the island. Nonetheless, middle-class Mexican and Dominican immigrants exist across the country, along with poor working-class Cubans. Latin Americans, like any ethnic group, have class differences, generational differences, and therefore political differences—meaning that no candidate, no matter how much they dominate the Latino vote, should ever think that one state’s Latino vote will determine the next state’s.

In Florida, for example, most Cuban American voters notoriously voted for Donald Trump in 2016. NPR’s Greg Allen went to Miami last year to see the extent to which Cuban Americans support Republicans. Virtually every Cuban American that Allen interviewed vehemently supported Trump. In fact, in the 2018 midterms, 70% of Cuban Americans voted for Republican candidates and remain integral to Trump’s Floridian base. Why do Cuban Americans so overwhelmingly support Trump, despite his anti-Latino rhetoric? After the Cuban revolution, most people fleeing Castro’s communist regime came from upper classes. Later waves of Cuban migration included more working-class families, but still featured more upper-class families than other Latin American migrations. As a result, compared to other Latin American diasporas, Cubans usually have higher levels of education, income, and home ownership. Cubans arriving to America with more resources usually opposed communism and thereby more often supported policies of Republican administrations—policies welcoming Cuban refugees, lowering taxes, and prioritizing a small, less centralized government.

Latin America consists of diverse cultures, classes, and people—to group them (or any single Latin American diaspora) into one large bloc not only undermines their cultural diversity, but dangerously presumes that all of them share the same politics. Pronouncements of Sanders’ frontrunner status after his Nevada victory now seem premature—to say that he won mostly due to a large, unified Latino vote, however, is equally absurd.

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

WU Political Review

The Fear of Encryption Clare Grindinger, treasurer

ight now, if I send a text to my friend on iMessage, and we both are using the iOS software, that text is encrypted, meaning only my friend and I can read it. Apple, the government, or any badly intentioned actors cannot read the message while in transit. This message may not be encrypted while at rest (not in transit), depending on whether the phones require a passcode and whether the phones are backed up to Apple’s iCloud servers. If the messages are saved to iCloud, they could potentially be read by the company or law enforcement (with the help of a warrant). In 2015, the San Bernardino shooting called into question whether the security and privacy of everyone (who had the same iOS the shooter had on his phone) should remain protected. Apple turned over all iCloud data stored from the phone in the month prior to the shooting to the FBI, in keeping with a warrant. Apple could do little more than that because giving a backdoor into the shooter’s phone would give a backdoor key to law enforcement for everyone else’s (on the same iOS) phone. This possible breach in protection could also make future iOS software more vulnerable. The shooter’s phone was locked, sure, but the real problem was the 10-attempt lockout feature. After ten failed logins, the phone freezes and all of the data is lost. In this context, Apple was willing to demonstrate a politically unpopular position with law enforcement and White House policy in defense of its more global intention to show a commitment to protect user data in comparison with its rival Google, proving Apple to be a more secure product. This, of course, was in part a publicity stunt to thwart Google, but also misleading. While Apple stands strong against US government inquiry, the company capitulates to more authoritarian governments, like China and Qatar, where the company does not have the same user support (and thus, market share) it enjoys in the US. The New York Times daily report podcast The Daily recently analyzed privacy and encryption through the lens of child pornography and the safety of survivors. While listening, I was concerned by the Daily’s correlation with Facebook’s

These employees are based in places like the Philippines, where the companies can get away with treating their employees with minimal resources and support. lack of accountability and unwillingness to flag (and eliminate) child pornography, particularly when coupled with the added encryption by platforms like Facebook. Currently, Facebook is in the process of encrypting their messenger service. Facebook, however, accounts for the majority of the flagging of child pornography, responsible for more than 90% of the reports in 2018. The former Chief of Security for Facebook, Alex Stamos, said Facebook are able to find, and then report, child pornography so heavily because they lack the encryption that creates barriers to finding the abuse and prosecuting the abuser. I was intrigued by this phenomenon in part because of a class I took on the Internet with Dave Walsh. A few days after listening to the podcast, I spoke with Dave to discuss the truth, history, and legal ramifications of the real injury resulting from child pornography, in contrast to the propaganda-based fear tactic behind the anti-encryption movement. When I spoke with Dave, he first discussed the history of encryption in the United States. This history focused on the gesture of invoking fear, from statements like, “Protect the (white) children” and “Terrorists (non-white people) will get us all.” In the 1950s, the government bugged the landlines of what they saw as “black radicals” and “communists” and later wired cellphones with the excuse of the “War on Drugs,” targeting and undermining the privacy of these individuals.

The federal government resisted adapting a positive stance towards digital encryption in the 1970s to the 1990s (and again in 2001 and 2015 with 9/11 and the San Bernardino shooting), with the idea that more information meant more ability to catch perpetrators of violence and threat. The government used a variety of pressures and legislation (like the 2004 Patriot Act) to ensure that the government, law enforcement, and military would not lose access to content and bad actors. These pressures centered on fear, like that of protecting children, because strong encryption would be used by criminals and terrorists who would be able to hide their criminal activity and violence from intelligence gathering efforts by government agencies and law enforcement. Their logic that more information meant catching more people is flawed because both encryption and capturing criminals is much more complex. The vast majority of Americans are against child pornography but using it as a fear tactic is an ethically ambiguous move and historically pertinent by these companies and the government. Recently, the conversation on child sexual abuse has risen due to President Trump’s attention on the matter. Trump stated that his “administration is putting unprecedented pressure on traffickers at home and abroad,” because his daughter, Ivanka Trump, has made child sexual abuse her signature issue. While child sexual abuse is an important cause, it is vital citizens read through Trump’s fear-tactics of perpetrators to not target specific, typically non-white individuals. Trump is exploiting the cause for his own political gain without any real change. In the world of all encrypted messages, child pornography makes up a small proportion of this data. While platforms like Facebook are in the process of encrypting their messages, advocates that seek to protect victims of child porn trafficking are against this as they see it as encryption as inhibiting the ability of the police to catch perpetrators. The same argument goes for the dark web; it’s not necessarily a bad thing even though it can be used for malicious purposes. Owning Tor, which gives users access to the “dark web”, or any URL address that does not begin with

National

Encryption is vital to the lives of many—people who speak out to journalists through protected services, survivors of cyber stalking who need this protection to avoid contact with their perpetrators— and thus must be protected.

www., is not illegal, but rather an alternative, unique internet ecosystem. Journalists and whistleblowers, like Edward Snowden, use it for privacy protection purposes to access sources that, if found, may put their lives on the line.

content moderators, have jobs that are incredibly emotionally and mentally taxing. They have to meet a quota, shifting through different posts to flag for inappropriate content: murders, sexual assault, animal abuse, and child pornography.

How do we stop how child pornography is generated, shared, and collected online? Some suggest that technology should be able to fix it by creating an algorithm that can detect child pornography. There are multiple problems with this: one, the algorithm would have to be fed massive amounts of data, using tens of thousands of victimized images, to be taught what defines pornography and how children can be identified; two, the data used would most likely be white children even though children of color make up a decent percentage of survivors of child abuse, specifically pornographic abuse (this would depend on the images made available for the algorithm to digest); finally, algorithms cannot predict future behavior which is why people like the Christchurch shooter in Australia can post the massacre to Facebook Live. Algorithms cannot stop what may happen but can only intervene after the fact. In the case of Christchurch, however, the video was pulled fairly quickly after it was posted but because Facebook is a network, people can easily download and reupload elsewhere. Currently, the people detecting child pornography are employees outsourced by these companies for content management. These employees are based in places like the Philippines, where the companies can get away with treating their employees with minimal resources and support. These employees,

Encryption aside, if a person is caught for child pornography, the files they uploaded or shared are not always deleted by law enforcement or the companies. We need state level pressure because Facebook and other platforms are seen as interstate commerce. States need to criminalize keeping child pornography on servers like Facebook. Survivors are often re-traumatized when legal authorities are mandated to tell them (or their parents if under the age of 18) how often they flag their specific files of child pornography shared or re-uploaded, despite if the original perpetrator of the act has been caught.

lives of many—people who speak out to journalists through protected services, survivors of cyber stalking who need this protection to avoid contact with their perpetrators—and thus, must be protected. We cannot bend to the propaganda of fear from the government to compromise our privacy. Combating child pornography is important, but encryption does not compromise finding, flagging, and stopping the spread of child pornography. By giving more people access to my data, I make it less secure. In order to protect more vulnerable people in the internet ecosystem, we need more protection.

Finally, companies are not responsible for the content uploaded on their platforms. Section 230 of the Electronic Communication Decency Act that stated that internet platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Google are not more responsible for illegal content, from child pornography to hate speech, than the individuals posting it because they are merely a host. Tech companies almost always comply with law enforcement, but there seems to be a lack of pressure to report, take down, and then keep track of malicious users or harmful material. We have seen the government’s fear of encryption used in the past half-century to curtail the rights of its citizens. Encryption is vital to the

Clare Grindinger ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at cgrindinger@wustl. edu.

WU Political Review

Lessons to Learn from the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Jaden A. Lanza , staff editor

ithin a month of Donald Trump’s unexpected election as President of the United States, construction of the Russian interference narrative began. It conveniently manifested at a time when the Democratic Party and political establishment as a whole were reeling, trying to make sense of the reactionary, populist Trump campaign. The party experienced a crushing defeat: a demagogic conservative secured the White House along with his party dominating Congress and a majority of state governorships and legislatures. The theory goes that it was foreign interference by Russia—not flaws in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, policies, or messaging—that primarily caused Democrats to lose the election. More than that, it is the belief that Donald Trump conspired with Russia to help him win the election, constituting treason against the United States and making him a puppet to Vladimir Putin. Russiagate, as it has become popularly known, was a predictable but dangerously reductive explanation for Clinton’s humiliation in 2016.

believe that Russia may have literally rigged voting machines and vote tallies in swing states in 2016 (despite no evidence of such). Ironic, given the worries about the Trump voters who believe that millions of immigrants illegally voted in the election. Then, in February, red scare language was used to attack Bernie Sanders in February following an intelligence briefing. The massive inflation of the role of Russian interference in 2016 is now being weaponized against Sanders by none other than Trump. Robert O’Brien, the President’s national security adviser, said he wasn’t surprised about the allegations that Russia is trying to help Sanders get elected: “He honeymooned in Moscow, after all.” Bizarrely, a conspiracy largely concocted in intelligence circles and propagated by democratic establishment figures would have been used against their own candidate in the general election had Sanders been nominated.

The frequency of Russiagate headlines in every major newspaper quietly declined last year, compared to its omnipresence in the days of 2017. Perhaps the long-awaited Mueller Report has something to do with it, which was released last April and found no evidence of contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Russian diplomats actually had difficulty contacting Trump spokesmen at all. The Mueller Report “stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened.”

Other outlets finally picked up on the new Bernie-Russia narrative with some skepticism. Alex Shephard at New Republic weighed in on coverage from the New York Post, commenting that their editorial board “…argued, against all available evidence, that Sanders was Vladimir Putin’s preferred candidate —and that intelligence reports that Russia was backing Trump were a “serious distortion” amplified “by Trumphating media.” CNN’s Jake Tapper publicized his own knowledge that the story was “overstated,” with Russia’s actual primary motive for any interference being general disruption. Above all, the idea that the Kremlin would want Bernie Sanders to win makes no sense—a man who has run his campaign on his opposition to oligarchy and autocracy… not exactly things Putin agrees with.

With major news outlets taking in government intelligence information without question, the whole story demonstrated once again the obedience of American media to the national security state. An astonishing number of Clinton voters

Bernie isn’t the only one; feverish Russiagate tactics have also been deployed against Tulsi Gabbard in major newspapers. In October, Hillary Clinton labeled Gabbard a Russian asset, claiming that she is “a favorite of the Russians.”

Clinton cited “a bunch of sites and bots” that support Gabbard’s candidacy—an allegation that, even if it contained a shred of reliable evidence, is a weak indication that Gabbard is a foreign asset. For all the people who buy into or believe the Russia story, whether in reference to Gabbard or Sanders or even Donald Trump—you’re making a huge mistake. A mistake that the Democratic establishment is still making that is compromising public trust in the media and alienating conservative-leaning voters who understandably find it overblown. Yes, it is true that Russian actors attempted to manipulate the election, albeit on a much smaller scale than imagined. But and this is incredibly important, there is no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in 2016. None of the alleged links were corroborated after four years of investigative journalism and the powerful Mueller investigation that ended with zero indictments of Americans for election-related crimes. It can be tempting to believe any corruption scandal just because it involves Donald Trump. He’s a bit of an easy target. But it’s a dangerous line of attack that only makes Democrats look conspiratorial and even desperate and allows some easy finger-pointing for Republicans— perhaps at Bernie Sanders because he honeymooned in Moscow, perhaps at Joe Biden’s dubious involvement with Ukraine. Should the Russiagate story make a comeback in the 2020 general election, it’ll again fall flat. It’s also a lesson on covering Trump scandals; Democrats can’t afford to focus all of their energy on things like the Russia or Ukraine scandals that haven’t resonated with voters. More focus needs to be on actual Republican policy that hurts regular people—and contrast that with plans that help them. Jaden A. Lanza ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jadenlanza@wustl. edu.

National

Artwork by Merry May Ma, staff artist

WU Political Review

Social distancing doesn't mean we're not connected. ad

Despite moving online through the COVID-19 pandemic, WUPR will continue receiving writing and art submissions for our final Wash U in St. Louis issue as well for our website.

To get involved in our next issue visit wupr.org/contribute