WUPR 24.2 Language by Washington University Political Review

Washington University

political review 24.2 | March 2016 | wupr.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

LANGUAGE 5

Interview with David Axelrod

Editors-in-Chief:

of Modern Messaging

Billie Mandelbaum

Serena Lekawa

and Aryeh Mellman

Aryeh Mellman

Why You Should Learn Classics

Executive Director:

The Cultural Politics

“Da Kine” Cultural History

Max Handler and Danny Martin

Katelyn Taira

NATIONAL

Is Irish the True Language of Ireland?

Candidate Language Feature

Why the Oxford Comma is Terrible Max Handler and Sam Klein

Comma Feature

Bilingualism Benefits

11 12

Hannah Waldman Staff Editors:

Maureen Flaherman

INTERNATIONAL

EDITOR’S NOTE

Of Supreme Importance

Rachel Butler

Sam Klein

Sam Klein Bisma Mufti

Please, God, Endorse Me

Dan Sicorsky

Reuben Siegman Features Editors:

Gerrymandering: What it is and

Max Handler

How it's Ruining Our Democracy

Serena Lekawa

Jack Goldberg

What “Take Our Country

Finance Director: Lauren Berger

Cognitive Development

Back” Really Means

Director of Design:

Keona Kalu

David Flasterstein

Andrew Kay

Unfair Elections: Canada

Assistant Directors of Design:

and Electoral Reform

Nikolai Laba

Michael Fogarty

Ezekiel Saucedo

Language in US Schools Feature

Language—It’s a Personal Thing Caitlin Lee

28 13

Languages Worldwide Feature

The Importance of a National Language Peri Feldstein

Israel, Where Has Your Zionism Gone? Tomek Cebrat

Director of New Media:

Dear Reader, Seventy years ago, British writer George Orwell penned his most famous essay, “Politics and the English Language.” Orwell criticized the vague and ambiguous qualities of political rhetoric, arguing that insincere politicians employ such language to deceive. As Orwell wrote, “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms...All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” Today, in the midst of a tumultuous presidential primary season we are bombarded with campaign platitudes. From Donald Trump’s promise to “make America great again,” to Bernie Sanders call for a “political revolution” voters are left to sift through the talk to determine how candidates will actually govern if elected. In this issue, writers examine the relationship between politics, culture, and language. Katelyn Taira writes about the origins and contemporary significance of Hawaiian Pidgin. In her piece on bilingualism, Keona Kalu discusses the cognitive benefits that come from speaking more than one language. Serena Lekawa examines the politics behind emoji usage. Last month, we were fortunate to have the opportunity to host political analyst and President Obama’s chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, through the SU Speaker Series. Thank you to all who made the event a great success. An excerpt from our interview with Axelrod can be found in this issue. Happy Reading!

Tomek Cebrat

Billie Mandelbaum and Aryeh Mellman

Digital Media Strategist

Editors-in-Chief

Sabrina Wang Programming Director: Reuben Siegman Front Cover: Naomi Giddings Theme Spread: Chris Reisenbichler Back Cover: Yuwei Qiu

LANGUAGE

political review | LANGUAGE

Use Your Emojination: The Cultural Politics of Modern Messaging Serena Lekawa | Illustration by Esther An

nyone with half a brain and a smartphone (which is to say, a brain and a half) knows that modern society celebrates the emoji as a mode of expression that is visual, experiential, and succinct like nothing else. Emoji popularity is so widespread that last year, it was almost no surprise to see the laughing-so-hard-I-am-crying face become the first pictograph featured as Oxford Dictionaries “Word of the Year.” The emoji is versatile. Texters, tweeters, Facebookers, and the like use emojis to relieve typed phrases from their prior Helvetica lackluster. Emojis enhance posts and messages with emotive specificity while maintaining a casual concision—a difficult feat to achieve with words alone. At the same time, emojis are meant to be generalizable. Despite the ever-expanding library of images and variations, the car emoji, for example, isn’t an exact representation of every car a person may be envisioning. Similarly, no smiley-winky face can stand for everyone’s smile-wink. There are flirty winks and knowing grandfather winks, among countless others. Many people don’t even have the physical capability of winking (or, for that matter, perfectly round yellow cartoon faces). In this sense, despite some impressive pieces of emoji storytelling and examples of systematic structure in picture order, mainstream emoji use seems more like elaborate punctuation than a separate language. In other words, emojis may be understandably crude since they also work as lighthearted shortcuts. However, as ubiquitous as they might seem to their most avid users, emojis are surrounded by ongoing sociopolitical debate. Who and what the emoji keyboard represents—and what it perhaps fails to represent—constantly evolves as the subject of heated discourse. By no means is the universality of emojis agreed-upon. Apple responded to criticisms bemoaning their lack of emoji diversity by adding variable skin tone options. But, while some rejoiced at seeing their “thumbs up” dinner plan confirmation

look closer to the winter-washed beige of their actual hand, the new skin color gradient failed to appease others. In a NPR piece from February 25, 2015, Kat Chow engages Oju Africa CEO Alpesh Patel, who argues that the update mistakes color for cultural diversity. In 2014, his company released a set of “Afro-centric” emojis in response to demands for more culturally comprehensive options. Additional requests from emoji users call for a wider array of world cuisines and country flags. While some may raise an eyebrow at emojicentric sociopolitical turmoil, the importance of cultural competency in a widely used form of messaging should not be understated. While it’s true that emoji can enhance the meaning of a phrase, such enhancement is limited by the images themselves and their potential for cultural interpretation by both senders and receivers. This is critical, because what emojis do and do not currently communicate holds ramifications in modern politics. For example, a tool now available on The Atlantic’s website tracks Twitter’s live feed to compile emojis being used to describe the presidential candidates in real-time: stars, cameras, flames, whirlwinds, laughing-crying faces, and American flags flit across the update bar above the most commonly tweeted pictures associated with each candidate. This seems like a harmless convergence of millennial-ism and election hype, or even a possible tool to spark civic interest among newer generations of voters. However, assuming emojis do have some qualities that lend them to universal interpretation—at least among certain American-mobile-social-media-using demographics—a kind of simplicity could overshadow real political discourse with shortcuts. Given that some of the most popular emojis convey general ethos rather than precision (namely positivity, negativity, or some form of ambivalence), using emojis without context as barometers of political opinion may have unintended consequences. For instance,

“Da Kine” Cultural History Katelyn Taira "

hat, you guys no stay go eat yet?” This is a familiar sentiment frequently expressed by my grandmother, perpetually baking in her tiny kitchen in Aiea, Hawaii. “No, we no stay eat. We jus’ pau hana ‘das why,” her neighbor responds. My Caucasian mother—hailing from the distant mainland coast of California—desperately needs a translation. “They just finished work and haven’t had dinner yet,” my dad offers, easily understanding the Hawaiian Pidgin English of his childhood.

the fist-in-the-air emoji communicates determination for a cause, but devoid of background knowledge or impetus to pursue a candidate’s platform further, such association may place broad labels on specific issues. At the same time, emoji interpretation can vary even among those within similar cultural and geographical demographics. Does a flame mean she’s “on fire,” or “going down in flames?” What can we make of the hand-on-the-chin pensive face—hard thinker, or stumped? In today’s digital landscape of overstimulation and shortening attention spans, we should be more careful about the shortcuts we offer, as they exacerbate the broad ideological strokes that polarize American politics. Again, it might seem overanalytical to read this campaign stunt as more than a stab at youth appeal. But one need not be a doomsayer touting fear of lingual overtake by emojispeak to consider the political and cultural ramifications of giving emojis credibility in political discourse. Though relatable communication is a worthy endeavor, politicians and the general citizenry alike ought to consider to whom they relate, how they relate, and what it means to simplify citizen perspectives to a set of tiny pictures made by someone else.

Serena Lekawa is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at slekawa@wustl.edu.

Although Hawaiian Pidgin is often misinterpreted as slang or a divergent English diction, the U.S. Census Bureau acknowledged it as an official, distinct language in November 2015. With nearly 400 other languages recognized, one more may not seem like a meaningful addition. However, considering the language’s evolution in usage, the Bureau’s decision marks a significant step for cultural expression and acceptance within Hawaii. Hawaiian Pidgin is more than just a common staple of local culture or a tourism selling point, and its history is darker than the brightly colored leis would indicate. Hawaiian Pidgin originated from the systematic exploitation of immigrant laborers, often of Asian origin, by Caucasian (haole) plantation owners in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 between the US and the Kingdom of Hawaii set the foundations for plantation multiculturalism; it provided America with unrestricted access to Hawaiian sugar, prompting large-scale American investment in sugarcane plantations. In search of cheap labor for their plantations, the owners brought workers to Hawaii from China, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Plantation owners benefitted from such waves of immigration, as their culturally distinct workers were not able to communicate and build trust among themselves to organize collectively and stir up labor unrest.

In the absence of a common tongue, Hawaiian Pidgin English was born. The grammatical structure is largely based on Hawaiian, Cantonese, and Portuguese, and the vocabulary mostly consists of words from English, Hawaiian, Japanese, and Portuguese. The plantation workers’ pidgin patois allowed for the slow emergence of a unique, conglomerate culture. With time, the immigrants raised their children to speak the plantation pidgin; when

Hawaiian Pidgin has heart—it is the consequence of American economic exploitation, but the triumph of a marginalized community. children learned Hawaiian Pidgin as their first language, it became a stable creole. It is neither slang nor a lexicon of synonyms; by definition, creole—including Hawaiian Pidgin English—is a unique language, complete with its own distinct grammatical structure, syntax, vocabulary, and meaning. As both a new tool and symbol of diverse immigrants establishing their own local culture, Hawaiian Pidgin became a rallying point for people of multicultural and displaced identities. Hawaiian Pidgin has heart—it is the consequence of American economic exploitation, but at the same time the triumph of a marginalized community. While still integral to the communal culture of Hawaiian locals, Hawaiian Pidgin has been historically stigmatized. Students were discouraged from using their native Hawaiian Pidgin in school when “English standard” schools were a part of the education system. Moreover, workplaces distanced themselves from Hawaiian Pidgin-speaking potential employees—that is, unless the employer

was associated with tourism. Deeply, and rightfully, associated with Hawaii, Hawaiian Pidgin was exploited by tourism agencies to supply their customers with a uniquely Hawaiian experience. In the proximate past, viewed through the lens of Hawaii’s mass tourism, Hawaiian Pidgin has become emblematic of how visitors view contemporary Hawaiian culture: kitschy, alternative, and fun. “Dictionaries” have been compiled with funny Hawaiian Pidgin idioms to sell in airports and convenience stores, alongside travel-size ukuleles and pineapple key chains. “Da kine” and “shaka, bruddah” are examples of accessible phrases inextricable from the tourist experience. Obviously, taking part in and appreciating culture does not necessitate or mean appropriation. However, by forgetting and extracting Hawaiian Pidgin’s origins from its sound, the unique and legitimate language of Hawaii’s immigrant laborers and their struggle becomes nonsensical slang to an uninformed ear. Due to the efforts of linguists and locals, the Census Bureau has taken a step in the right direction. As an official language, Hawaiian Pidgin is recognized for its origins and cultural significance. With less stigmatization, native Hawaiian Pidgin speakers can better integrate into educational and formal settings. Because the Bureau allowed the practice of creole language, Hawaiian Pidgin no longer has to be an alternative vernacular, but instead can be a mainstream and important medium of social identity and multiculturalism.

Katelyn Taira is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at ktaira@wustl.edu.

political review | LANGUAGE

Is Irish the True Language of Ireland?

PRESIDENTIAL candidate language

Maureen Flaherman

Word clouds generated from candidate speeches using fixed settings on https://www.jasondavies.com/wordcloud/

ost dying languages belong to stateless nations—groups without the resources or power to save their native language. Perhaps the most notable exception to this rule is the Irish language; despite the Irish government’s policies promoting the study and usage of the language, the number of Irish speakers continues to decline. The Irish language has been in decline for centuries. During the 1840s, the Irish potato famine diminished the number of native Irish speakers as a result of high death and emigration rates. Later in the 19th century, however, the Irish language became a symbol of the Irish republican movement and of Irish nationalism. With the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, the Irish language became a mandatory part of the curriculum in Irish schools, and in 1937, Irish became Ireland’s official first language. Policies promoting the learning and use of Irish, including the teaching of the language to all students, continue to this day. Despite the government’s investment in the Irish language, the number of Irish speakers continues to decline. According to the 2006 Census of Population, 42 percent of people in Ireland have “a certain ability to speak Irish,” but only 3 percent of people consider Irish their “main community and household language.”

In 2010, the Irish government released a report outlining its strategy for reviving the Irish language by 2030. The plan includes increasing the public’s knowledge of Irish, creating opportunities for the language’s use, and fostering positive attitudes toward its use. The report lays out a plan for making mandatory Irish education more immersive and increasing the frequency of its use in areas outside of education. While the 20-year strategy lays out an extensive plan, it focuses on expanding programs that already exist. For example, the report discusses a plan for improving summer colleges in Irish-speaking areas. The Irish government intends for these colleges

political review | LANGUAGE

Since it’s entirely possible (and perhaps actually easier) to be Irish but not speak Irish, the citizens of Ireland have no reason to learn a language that they will rarely be able to use. to provide non-native Irish speakers with an immersive Irish experience, but these colleges have historically only caused an influx of English-speaking residents to enter Irish-speaking areas during the summer. This strategy does not effectively combat the problem, as the Irish summer colleges will continue to have little effect on increasing the number of Irish-speaking citizens. In spite of the Irish government’s long-fought battle to increase the use of the Irish language, it seems unlikely that the language will ever flourish again. Despite the government’s complex policies promoting the language, there may be a simple reason why it’s not used— there are no real incentives for using it. English is the language of business both within Ireland and internationally, so almost every person in Ireland speaks it. Not only do people use solely English in professional settings, but they also speak English during almost any kind of financial transaction, even when making small purchases. Given that Irish people can converse with almost anyone in English, they have no reason other than mandatory education and national pride to speak Irish. Furthermore, the few predominantly Irishspeaking areas that do exist are there because of historical and cultural factors; they were designated as predominantly Irish-speaking in the 1950s and their status has not been changed despite the continued decline of the language. These areas do not have any other characteristics that make them unique compared to the rest of the country, and they are not geographically contiguous which makes the development of a truly Irish-speaking region even harder. Since it’s entirely possible (and

MARCO RUBIO

HILLARY CLINTON

BERNIE SANDERS

DONALD TRUMP

perhaps easier) to be Irish but not speak Irish, the citizens of Ireland have little reason to learn a language that they will rarely need to use. The Irish people are known for being proud of their heritage; even in the United States, many people are aware of Irish music, Irish dance, Irish food, and Irish history. Irish people—both citizens of Ireland and members of the Irish diaspora—are proud of the freedom that they gained after centuries of British rule. But most of these people don’t speak the Irish language; they are satisfied with knowing other parts of their cultural history. They don’t need to learn a new language to be proud of their traditions. Reviving the Irish language may still be possible, but it is unlikely that expanding education programs and teaching parents about the benefits of raising their children to be bilingual will bring about that revival. If Irish is ever to be in common use again, it must be viewed as a more essential aspect of Irish identity.

Maureen Flaherman is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at maureen.flaherman@wustl.edu.

political review | LANGUAGE

WUPR Debates the Serial Comma

Oxford comma use in the us Data from a poll by FiveThirtyEight | Infographic by Nikolai Laba

Sam Klein

he serial comma, also known as the Oxford comma, is the name for the final comma before the conjunction at the end of a list of items. It is the final comma in the sentence, “I enjoy apples, bananas, and cranberries.” It has proven to be a polarizing grammatical feature— some stylebooks recommend it, others do not, and others leave it up to the writer’s discretion. Below, Washington University Political Review writers Max Handler and Sam Klein revive the debate.

rosaic convention favors, and has always favored, rhythm, aesthetic, and cadence over spatial efficiency. We don’t generally write in the same manner that we text or tweet because we hold all but the most informal writing to a minimum standard of quality. The serial comma is a critical component of this standard. At the price of—spare me—mild redundancy, the serial comma provides that the visual pace of words on a page match that of the voice in our heads or a voice reading the words aloud. At worst, the serial comma offers no additional clarification but still visually simulates the tempo of the sentence. If I were to say, “I bought The Art of the Deal, gasoline, and a matchbook,” the three items would be evenly spaced in my diction. The Brits call the comma the “half stop” for good reason, and its absence causes us to rush over the ends of lists. This is tragic because writers often save the best for last. But the serial comma is often more than convenient—it can be indispensable. Our grammatical protagonist frequently clears up ambiguities, while almost never causing them. Consider its role in a sentence like “I respect my friends, the President, and the Dalai Lama.” The latter individuals are not my friends, and in the absence of the serial comma, a reader might do a double take at the byline. The serial comma is satisfying, rhythmic, and useful. So with all due respect, the New York Times, my colleague Mr. Handler, and Vampire Weekend can all get lost with their punctuational tomfoolery. Sam Klein is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at klein.s@wustl.edu.

Why the Oxford Comma is Terrible Max Handler

he Oxford comma, also known as the serial comma, is a wildly overrated type of punctuation favored by the pretentious. In almost all cases, the punctuation does nothing other than take up space. Take the following sentence: “I need to buy eggs, milk, and bread.” What function does the comma serve in such a sentence, other than to take up space? It doesn’t resolve any ambiguity, as there is none, and the only justification for using it in such a case is for stylistic purposes. To claim that the Oxford comma should be used by everyone simply because it fits one stylistic preference is rather silly. But defenders of this absurd grammatical quirk cling to it, claiming that it serves to reduce ambiguity. But in every case where such ambiguity exists, the sentence can simply be reworded to increase clarity. For instance, supporters of the Oxford comma argue that in the sentence “I invited my parents, Heidi, and Jonathan” the Oxford comma removes ambiguity. Without it, it would be possible for Heidi and Jonathan to be in apposition to the noun “parents.” But simply rewording the sentence avoids this issue: “I invited Jonathan, Heidi and my parents.” The comma is thus rendered unnecessary. Supporters of the comma, however, tend to overlook its ability to create ambiguity. For example, an Oxford comma

makes the following sentence more—not less—ambiguous: “I invited the clown, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders to my birthday party.” It is unclear whether I invited two people (the clown Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders) or three (a clown, a separate person named Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders). Thanks to the Oxford comma, this sentence has become ambiguous; it is impossible to tell whether or not Donald Trump is a clown (although for the record, he is). Thus, we can conclude the following: the Oxford comma offers no tangible benefits, and instead serves to create ambiguity and take up space.

The Oxford Comma offers no tangible benefits, and only serves to create ambiguity and take up space. Max Handler is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at handlermax@gmail.com.

political review | LANGUAGE

Bilingualism benefits cognitive development

Language in us schools Data from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

Keona Kalu

he United States provides an interesting paradox: people describe the country both as a traditional “melting pot” of cultures, but also as culturally unaware relative to people from other countries. The sheer size of the country separates it from other areas with significantly different cultures, which makes many of us satisfied simply with interstate travel. A significant portion of the population has never even been out of the country. As of last year, only about 38 percent of Americans had valid passports. Sadly, a result of this is that only about 20 percent of Americans are bilingual in comparison to 54 percent of Europeans. This makes sense considering the closeness of European countries; there, it is almost essential to know more than one language in order to freely travel, move, and work throughout the continent, as many Europeans do. America’s primary use of English throughout the country, however, eliminates the need for knowing another language. It is a shame nonetheless, especially since bilingualism has been shown to have a positive impact on cognitive development. Our day-to-day activities and experiences throughout our lives have the potential to physically modify our brains. This phenomenon is called neuroplasticity. Activities that seem like simple parts of our lives, such as playing videogames, driving taxis, and playing music, all contribute to neuroplasticity. Another phenomenon that contributes to neuroplasticity: speaking another language. Like playing videogames and driving taxis, this skill makes use of many functional connections and modifies our brains. In the early 1920s, some scientists assumed that bilingualism had negative consequences on childhood brain development. In 1926, influential child psychologist and researcher Florence Goodenough posited, “This might be considered evidence that the use of a foreign language in the home is one of the chief

factors in producing mental retardation as measured by intelligence tests.” Now, almost a century later, there exists substantial evidence against this claim.

The cognitive benefits of using one’s brain to learn a second language could influence people to reconsider their choice to only study or use their native tongue. In an interview with NPR, psychologist and researcher Elle Bialystok explained that even when a bilingual person uses one language at a given moment, the other one remains active at the same time. This coincides with the fact that bilinguals tend to show lower proficiency in each of their two languages than their monolingual counterparts show in their one. Once you acquire a language, you can’t just “turn it off,” the same way you can’t just turn off your ability to understand your native tongue. This interferes a good deal in a bilingual person’s use of each of their languages. Fortunately, the brain continually strengthens its ability to separate the two tongues using executive control, which the Harvard Center on the Developing Child defines as “the mental processes that enable us to plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks successfully.” The NPR article where Bialystok was quoted explains the relevance to people who speak more than one language: “Bilinguals have to do something that monolinguals don't do — they have to keep the two languages separate… The brain has to keep the two channels separate and pay attention to only one.”

The bilingual advantage is not significantly apparent in children or young adults; older people, however, experience a loss of executive control, and with that decline comes a reduction in high-level thought, sustained attention, and multitasking. But according to a 2011 meta-analysis study, older bilingual people are protected against this cognitive decline, and lose their executive control more slowly than monolingual people do. And a 2013 study found that the onset of dementia is delayed by about 4.5 years in bilingual people.

These are the five most taught languages in the United States: Spanish, French, Latin, Chinese, and German. Below are the percentages of US schools with language programs that offer each.

Americans often dismiss the importance of learning a second language, especially those with plans to stay in the country for the rest of their lives. Only seven percent of college students were enrolled in a foreign language course in 2015, according to an article published in The Atlantic. And less than one percent of American adults are proficient in a language they learned in the classroom. The cognitive benefits of using one’s brain to learn a second language could influence people to reconsider their choice to only study or use their native tongue.

Keona Kalu is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at keona.kalu@wustl.edu.

political review | LANGUAGE

Language—it’s a personal thing

MOST WIDELY SPOKEN LANGAUGES

Caitlin Lee

Data from InfoPlease and Ethnologue

ather than attend a traditional Chinese school, I opted for Sunday morning dim sum, an informal and delicious way to connect with my heritage. Although dim sum certainly has its merits, few would argue that dumplings have had a transformative cultural effect on their lives. While my grandma would rattle off her order in rapid Cantonese, I picked up on the words that truly mattered. Char siu bao: white fluffy domes stuffed with barbeque pork. Cheong fun: slippery rice noodles masking exposed shrimp in a bath of Kikkoman’s finest. Xiao long bao: the most delicate of soup dumplings and quite possibly the gateway drug of the East. Wu gok: a combination of fried taro, mushroom, shrimp, and pork that sounds weird, but works. A few more dishes here and there are the extent of my Chinese fluency.

Asian students must speak the language of their ancestors. If he comes across a foreign term, he will attempt to identify his students’ races based on their last names and proceed to interrogate them about the word and their ethnicity. I think there is a comical quality to the situation. In the moment, nervous laughter seems to be the best way to handle the circumstances. One could come up with a number of excuses for this professor:

When waiters attempt to engage me in Chinese, I smile sheepishly until they realize the futility of their actions. My uncomfortable smile isn’t an apology for my inability to understand Chinese, but rather a reaction to their mistaken assumptions. Even at a place like Washington University, some cannot fathom that one can be Chinese, albeit Chinese-American, and not speak the dialect.

Regardless, these points remain excuses – excuses for the unnecessary discomfort that I, or any student, should not have experienced.

He genuinely wants to determine the correct pronunciation of the word. He genuinely aspires to know the background of his students. He genuinely cares about his students and their ties to their ancestry.

Other than my physical appearance, there is little to suggest that I speak Chinese. I was born in California where I have lived my entire life. My dad knows French, but not Chinese. My mom knows Spanish, but not Chinese. My grandparents only speak Chinese between themselves and with friends. While some connect to their heritage through language, I have never used language to define myself. My rejection of the Cantonese versions of grandma and grandpa – Yea-Yea and Ngin-Ngin – didn’t represent a blatant denunciation of my heritage. Rather, it embodied an eagerness to connect to my American identity – third generation strong and three generations removed from China.

In these situations, I am no longer concerned with the quality of my comments or the discussion at hand. Now, it is my outward appearance, an arbitrary characteristic that I cannot control, that becomes the forefront of the class. Through these actions, the professor simultaneously singles out and generalizes all Asian and Asian-American students. Language is one way for people to connect to their culture; his distorted sense of “who should speak what” taints the intimate power of language to bridge the individual to culture, family, and history. His superficial assumptions cheapen the evolution of language and the idea of globalization in a world in which isolation is becoming obsolete. The belief that I speak the language of my ancestors is self-serving; it provides a convenient vehicle for people to think they know my background and an easy way to neglect the rich processes by which I came to be Chinese-American.

Although some ask about my linguistic shortcomings with the intention to better understand, others stubbornly refuse to accept what they perceive as a contradiction. One of my professors firmly believes that all

Our backgrounds are multidimensional and complex. Our identities cannot be reduced to outward appearances and the languages that our ancestors spoke hundreds of years ago. While I acknowledge the value in learning the

language of one’s ethnicity, there are other ways to identify with heritage. We lament the loss of language with each coming generation, and yet, it’s easy for us to forget that our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents taught themselves English to assimilate and succeed in America. For them, to learn language was to survive. For me, to learn language is to relearn what my grandparents had to repress. Language can be both a necessity and a privilege. It can strengthen our relationship with our heritage, but the lack of language doesn’t cheapen our identities. When reality conflicts with a professor’s preconceived notions, he remarks that “we should be more in touch with our ethnicity.” This simple suggestion points to his greater failing in understanding that our unique identities are shaped by different processes, variables, and backgrounds. Dim sum translates to “touch the heart.” The little Chinese that I learned through dim sum is not insignificant or trivial. It is the byproduct of valuable Sunday mornings in which I discovered what it means to be both Chinese and American, surrounded by family, pork buns, and sesame balls.

Caitlin Lee is a senior in the Olin School of Business. She can be reached at caitlinlee@wustl.edu.

*The macrolanguage Chinese [zho] includes 13 individual languages with at least 1 million speakers. **The macrolanguage Arabic [ara] includes 18 individual languages with at least 1 million speakers.

political review | LANGUAGE

The Importance of a National Language Peri Feldstein

ccording to Ethnologue, a popular online linguistics publication, there are 127 languages spoken in The United Republic of Tanzania, a country comparable in size to the state of Texas. Of these, 125 languages are living, and two are extinct. Of the living languages, 117 are indigenous, and eight are foreign. Fifty-eight are considered to be vigorously used and sustainable, 39 are considered endangered, 18 languages are considered to be developing, and eight are considered dying. Two languages, Swahili and English, are recognized as institutionalized national languages by the legislature of Tanzania. The two languages have very distinct roles within the nation. In 1984, the National Linguistics Policy proclaimed Swahili the primary language of Tanzania and the language of the social and political sphere. English was proclaimed to be used almost entirely for educational purposes as the language of high schools and universities, as well as in technological centers and within the high courts. This system prevailed, but with complication. Classes in primary schools were taught in Swahili and English was taught as a secondary language, much like Spanish and French are taught in American primary schools. But as soon as students reached high school, their regular language of instruction switched to English instead of Swahili. Although the policy intended to create a nation of bilinguals, the reality was that students were not necessarily proficient in either language despite being expected to comprehend both. Since this was only one of the many issues plaguing the Tanzanian education system, the government embarked on an all-out education system overhaul. In March 2015, the government declared their solution to the language of education problem—becoming the first sub-Saharan African country to do so, Tanzania discontinued the use of English as the language of education, switching instead to Swahili at all levels of education, from

primary school through the university level. The question is: was this a practical change? Due to European imperialism in the partition of Africa, national boundaries throughout the continent do not necessarily reflect the cultural identities of their inhabitants, and Eastern Africa has long been afflicted with cultural strife and conflict due to the lack of a unifying sense of nationality. Though its neighbors, especially Kenya and Rwanda, have been heavily burdened by this disunity and tribal warfare, Tanzania has managed to mostly evade this issue, despite boasting over 130 tribes that each have their own language and culture. Many Tanzanians credit this relative tranquility to the popular use of Swahili over smaller tribal languages. Swahili itself is a combination of many languages and cultures: a blend of Arabic, Bantu, English, and German. The language reflects the history of East Africa, and has served as a force of unification in Tanzania. Some believe that choosing to educate Tanzanians in their own language promotes cultural self-affirmation, and furthers national unity by helping define what it truly means to be a Tanzanian. Others fear the international implications this bold proclamation will unleash. In a globalized world where international economics and politics are executed in English, devaluing a Tanzanian student’s English education may be a step backwards for a nation hoping to increase its presence in the global arena. The decision to turn English into a foreign language will inevitably exacerbate the barrier to entry that Tanzanians face when trying to involve themselves in international affairs. Even if Tanzanians are able to retain their ability to speak English eloquently enough to conduct business in Europe and the Americas, Tanzania will lose its competitive advantage over the rest of East Africa when companies realize that in order to settle down in Tanzania, they must pay more for bilingual employees or hire additional translators.

The lack of national unity resulting from European-imposed artificial borders has been the cause of intermittent tribal warfare across the African continent. A clear example of this is Nigeria, a country lacking a common identity so much so that College Board uses Nigeria on the AP Comparative Government exam as an example of a “failed state.” What it means to be Nigerian has become so unclear that an overwhelming number of Nigerians consider their first loyalty to their tribe, laying aside their allegiance to their country. This lack of national unity is what has made violence between tribes so easy, and this intra-national division has forged an environment where terrorist organizations like Boko Haram can pick up the fallen pieces to create a thriving breeding ground for radicalization and recruitment. This is not to suggest that Tanzania’s conversion to Swahili necessarily saves them from intertribal crises. Nor do I mean to suggest that if Nigerians could only pick a common language, Boko Haram may cease to exist. I do believe, however, that Boko Haram would have a much harder time carrying out attacks and radicalizing young recruits if Nigerians truly felt a sense of pride and connection to their national identity. In this sense, I see Tanzania’s move towards using one shared language as creating a common thread across the country, an opportunity to truly unify a nation out of an artificially fabricated state. Unified, Tanzania could expect to see less tribal chaos and more national order. A common sense of patriotism would illuminate Tanzanian self-identity, an ideal I believe is well worth the potential economic difficulties Tanzania may face in the future.

Peri Feldstein is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at pfeldstein@wustl.edu

political review | national

Interview with David Axelrod

we can grab the wheel of history and we can steer that wheel and we can make a difference, and I've seen it happen.

Billie Mandelbaum and Aryeh Mellman Billie Mandelbaum: Mr. Axelrod, welcome and thank you for joining us. In your memoir you write that your passion for politics began when you were five years old after attending a campaign rally for John F. Kennedy. Can you take us back to that day and explain to us what exactly about that day spurred your lifelong career? David Axelrod: Well first of all it was twelve days before the 1960 election, October 27 1960, which is noteworthy because John F. Kennedy was making 10 stops in the city of New York, 12 days before the election-a Democratic candidate-wouldn't happen today. The only reason candidates go through New York now is to raise money. But New York was hotly contested in that election and he was making 10 stops in New York City, and one of them was in a place called Stuyvesant Town, which was a housing development for returning war veterans, and that's where I grew up. My mother was at work, and the woman who took care of me while my mother was at work was an African-American woman named Jessie Berry, a wonderful wonderful woman. She thought I should see this and took me out and she put me on top of a mailbox and I watched 20th street, which is this great big boulevard, filling with people and then John F. Kennedy jumped up on a platform and everybody was paying rapt attention to him and his voice was booming off those buildings and clearly it was really important. He was talking about the future and it just felt very exciting to me and I was really hooked from that moment. I started working in campaigns when I was nine years old when his brother ran for the US Senate in New York, Bobby Kennedy. Not too many people can point to that moment; that was my moment. Aryeh Mellman: And can you talk about how the skill set and knowledge you gained at the beginning of

your career working as a reporter has helped influence your later career as a political consultant and strategist? DA: In writing the memoir I had to think a lot about some of these issues and some of the strains in my life, and I realized that I'm basically a storyteller, that I like telling authentic stories about who people are, what they're about. I used to do that as a journalist and its really what I've done in politics, I've tried to help develop authentic narratives for my candidates that are really rooted in who they are, and that involves doing some reporting and questioning and then telling the story in creative ways. AM: Turning now to 2016 and the upcoming election, what do you think are the biggest issues at stake in the presidential election? DA: One of them apparently is going to be the Supreme Court unless the Senate decides they're going to act on the president’s nominee, and that's actually added an element to this election that nobody anticipated. Let me say what I hope it would be about…We have long-standing challenges in this country that go to changes in the economy, and this has gone back not just one administration, but decades. The revolutionary growth in technology, globalization, that have marginalized large numbers of lesser-educated people whose middle class jobs have been essentially made obsolete. Wages have been flat. Median income today is about what it was in 1999. Ninety percent of Americans haven't effectively seen a wage increase in two decades, and we all know about the growing gulf in inequality that’s plaguing the country. We need to seriously confront these questions and I hope that that will be front and center in this election. It's certainly front and center in the Democratic race. I think it's front and center in the minds of most Americans, so therefore I hope that it will ultimately be what this campaign turns to. BM: In this Democratic race, we've seen two different campaign styles. We have Hillary Clinton's pragmatism and Bernie Sanders more

The Affordable Care Act is an example of that. Millions of people mobilized across this country and elected Barack Obama president because they felt that he was someone who was willing to risk everything for the things he believed in. He believed we needed to reform the healthcare system and he took great political risk, more political risk, frankly, than I wanted him to take in order to pass the Affordable Care Act. And now I constantly run into people who tell me their stories, oftentimes with tears in their eyes, about how their lives were saved because they were able to get insurance, and they would never have been able to get insurance before. So it's hard not to be idealistic when you have those encounters.

populist revolutionary style. What do you think are the pros and cons of each campaign style? DA: Well I've been really impressed with what Bernie Sanders has accomplished in this campaign. No one would have predicted six months ago that he would be where he is today. And I think he's been very very focused on this issue of inequality, and he's been talking about these issues for a very long time so there's a fundamental authenticity to his message, and I'd guess he has a lot of supporters on this campus as he does on every campus in the country. I think Hillary Clinton has an argument in that having served in the White House during the first two years of this presidency and having been with him when he miraculously was able to pass health reform, but understanding that he had to compromise in order to do it.

My view is: look, its a tough, messy, sometimes discouraging process, but at the end of the day its an opportunity to do good things that can help people, that can help the country, that can change the world for the better. I've seen it happen time and again in the last seven years in ways that I think we'll come to appreciate more and more as time goes on. And so I'm still a believer.

I have a keen recognition of the compromises one has to make in order to move forward in a very freighted political system. Bernie Sanders likes to talk about Franklin Roosevelt as his political hero, and Franklin Roosevelt deserves to be in that pantheon of political heroes, but I'm always reminded of the fact that when Franklin Roosevelt passed Social Security, he passed it in a form that essentially excluded almost every African American worker in this country, and he didn't do it because he felt that was the right end result, he did it because it was the best he could do, and he thought that we could improve on it as we went along, and that was the decision President Obama made about the Affordable Care Act. So it's not a very inspiring, soaring message to say that we can't go as fast as you'd like to go, and one of the reasons why I like working with young people at the University of Chicago is they don't have a lot of patience. They want to see change and they want to see it quickly and they want to see it dramatically, and they don't want to hear about the problems of the political system. But our Founding Fathers built this system that was intended to slow down change, that was intended to work in a very lumbering way when there were great divisions in the country, and that's where

we are today. So you do have to make some acknowledgement of that, and I think in that sense, Bernie, who's been in Congress for 25 years, is not acknowledging the reality that he knows to be the fact. BM: Given all the talk of partisanship and gridlock, how do you maintain your idealism and [remain] a "believer" in the power of politics? DA: Its a good question, its one of the reasons why I wrote a book. Amid all of this I've also

been witness to what politics and government could do. John F. Kennedy said in my encounter with him when I was five, and I hasten to add that I didn't remember this from when I was five, but through the wonders of Google I now know what he said. He said "I'm not running on the platform that says if you like me everything will be good or easy. Being an American citizen in the 1960s is a hazardous occupation, filled with peril but also hope, and we'll decide in this election which path we take." That's what I believe. I believe we can make a difference,

[Politics] is a tough, messy, sometimes discouraging process, but at the end of the day its an opportunity to do good things that can help people, that can help the country, that can change the world for the better. Billie Mandelbaum is a junior and Aryeh Mellman is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. They can be reached at bmandelbaum@wustl.edu and aryeh.mellman@wustl.edu.

political review | national

Why you should learn classics

Of Supreme Importance

Max Handler and Danny Martin | Illustration by Kat Bourek

Sam Klein | Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

n November of 2014, a current presidential candidate took to the Senate floor to deliver another one of his tirades against President Obama. This one, however, was different from the rest. While Ted Cruz has been known to make references to the works of others during his Senate speeches (famously reading Doctor Seuss as part of his opposition to Obamacare), this time he chose a slightly older author to borrow from: the famed Roman orator and statesman Cicero. In a four-minute speech, he adapted part of Cicero’s In Catilinam to inveigh against President Obama. While opinions can differ as to Cruz’s politics, it is undeniable that his oration was persuasive. Cruz cast himself in the role of Cicero, defender of the Republic, while he compared the President to Catiline, a man who sought to overthrow the Republic for his own gain. The news coverage of Cruz’s speech treated it as a kind of oddity: an obscure reference, something strange and out of place. But even though students don’t study Latin quite as much as they once did, the language’s influence can still be felt throughout the modern world. Just look at the English language itself: over sixty percent of English words are derived from Latin. As premeds certainly are aware, the classics have an even greater influence in technical areas. Over ninety percent of science and technology terms come from Latin. Understanding Latin and Greek makes navigating these tricky subject matters much easier. But the influence of the classics goes deeper than just language. Most arguments for why one should learn Latin involve selfimprovement. It will improve your grammar, increase your vocabulary, help you score higher on the SATs. These arguments are certainly valid, but they aren’t particularly persuasive to many people. There are easier ways to do all of those things than learning

to fully preserve the nuances that make them great.

what many think of as a dead language. Why, then, should one learn Latin or Greek? The answer is actually quite simple: they’re fun. Contrary to the impression most have of Latin and Greek as being stodgy, old, boring languages, they are in fact vibrant and alive. People do actually still speak these languages, new words are added to update them, and there are even Latin ATMs in the Vatican. But more seriously, anyone who doesn’t believe quite yet should actually read something written in one of these languages. Stories like the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Aeneid are the basis for epics, dramas, and love stories through the present day. Many people read translations of these works in high school, but something is lost in translation. In fact, many translators would tell you that the hardest part of their job is making choices between the literal words of the language and the tone and meaning of those words. Especially in a language so old, these classics are best appreciated in their original language in order

If this doesn’t persuade you yet, there are some examples that you probably think about every single day. Only within the last century has the study of Latin taken a backseat, but before that, the classics were an integral part of higher education. A truly educated person knew Cicero, Plato, and Homer like the back of their hand, and nobody let the classics influence their life more than our very own Founding Fathers. Prominent figures like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and John Jay all wrote letters and pamphlets throughout the Revolution and Constitution-draft process signed in the names of classical figures like Cicero, Marc Antony, and Caesar. It was no coincidence. They attempted to model their creation of a new republic in terms of the historical Roman Republic. Even the style of our American government is influenced by an understanding of Roman government. This is something you may think about every day, but never realize. The debates that play out in the Capitol Building every year are often shadows of the political clashes in ancient Rome. The Founding Fathers were well aware of this due to their extensive knowledge of the classics, and sought to use that history to their advantage. There are many great benefits to studying the classics, not the least of which is that they apply in today’s world more than ever. And what’s more, those “dead” languages allow you to become a part of a human tradition thousands of years old and to read the very same words that impressed a Roman emperor or Greek statesman.

Max Handler is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at handlermax@gmail.com Danny Martin is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at daniel.martin@wustl.edu

he death of Justice Antonin Scalia has launched the Supreme Court into the spotlight of national politics. What will happen next, both in terms of filling his vacancy and how he will be remembered, is an unsettled question. The Republican-controlled Senate will most certainly not confirm an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court. Senate judiciary leaders have said they won’t even hold hearings and begin that process. However, aside from the negative PR that will come with reneging on those claims, there are few consequences for Chuck Grassley et al to at least go through the motions on Obamas nominee (or nominees). In fact, there is a good deal of upside—Senate republicans may be able to shake their rising reputation of unadulterated obstructionism, a narrative that Democrats are aggressively pushing in the media, and string along a nomination for months. Republicans first cited “precedent,” a term commonly associated with the legal doctrine of stare decisis, as the reason they should not confirm a Supreme Court justice in an election year. But Washington University Professor Lee Epstein, who examines trends and behavior in the judicial system, was not buying it. “Hearing these politicians invoke precedent is hilarious,” she said in an interview. At best, Epstein told me, it could be called tradition, but even that would be a questionable label because of Justice Kennedy’s confirmation in 1988. Regardless, the Constitution makes it clear that the President nominates a justice and the Senate confirms one, and circumstantial “precedent” or “tradition” should not be a factor. However, there are other reasons President Obama is under such scrutiny, and why he must be very careful in choosing his nominee. Many of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in recent memory, including the Citizens United v. FEC case that addressed campaign finance were polarizing in the Court as well as in the “court” of public opinion. Many 5-4 precedents will be vulnerable if even a centrist justice replaces the conservative Scalia,

as it will, in Epstein’s words, “shift the center of gravity on the Supreme Court.” And while these narrow precedents are pragmatically vulnerable due to the possibly changing voting dynamics on the Court, they are likewise more susceptible to change because those narrow decisions are not seen to be as robust as more unified ones. In other words, the Court may more readily overturn cases decided by a narrow margin, and at the same time may find it easier to do so in the event that Scalia’s replacement is at least a centrist. No matter how the future of the Court unfolds, Justice Scalia’s influence on the bench in his nearly 30-year tenure is indubitable. The words “titan” and “juggernaut” were mentioned frequently on TV, and his longtime colleague, friend, and ideological inverse Justice Ginsburg praised his incisiveness, humor, and “pungent opinions.” Perhaps more even more tellingly, towards the end of her statement, Justice Ginsburg described her late friend and coworker as a “magnificent performer.” Justice Scalia was a bold presence on the Court, and his oftentimespointed dissents were unconventional and often impudent. There was never any doubt when Justice Scalia was behind the text. “A lot of his behavior would be consistent with a justice who is trying to leave a legacy,” noted Professor Epstein. But that legacy may revolve more around Justice Scalia’s reputation and personality than anything else. While he instilled a culture of more active questioning of attorneys during oral arguments (a culture Justice Thomas rejects, but which the other justices often follow), it is questionable whether his other main contribution, a strong commitment to originalist interpretation of the Constitution, will carry on. (Justice Thomas is the only remaining justice who consistently

employs originalism, the philosophy that the Constitution should be interpreted as it would have been by an ordinary individual around 1789.) Justice Scalia viewed decisions in his own way, and any of the other legal minds who felt differently were so obviously mistaken. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the recent case ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, Scalia noted in his dissent that “the stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.” In his dissent of the opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart, a 2000 case which advanced abortion rights, Scalia aptly wrote in that he was “in an I-toldyou-so mood” “He was not a grand coalition builder, but I’m not convinced that was his goal,” Epstein said. “I think his goal was creating a legacy for himself, rather than bringing together people.” Whether that legacy will be seen a righteous boat against a tide of unjust, “living constitution” jurisprudence, or as a series of belligerent protests against the inevitable progression of justice is unclear. What is certain is that Justice Scalia’s presence on the court, his enthusiasm, his humor, and his passion will not soon be forgotten.

Sam Klein is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at klein.s@wustl.edu.

political review | national

How Gerrymandering is Ruining Our Democracy

Please, God, Endorse Me Reuben Siegman | Illustration by Ruby Rose

edia figures often talk about how there are two different kinds of primaries going on: the electoral primary—decided by caucuses, primary elections, superdelegates, and a party convention—and the invisible primary. The invisible primary is made up of two components: fundraising and endorsements. The fundraising category is further split into money raised by Super PACs, organizations that pool contributions to support either specific issues or candidates (but not in coordination with the candidate), and money raised by a candidate’s actual campaign. On the endorsement side, there is also a split—endorsements from current elected officials and endorsements from others, such as former elected officials, political organizations, and grassroots leaders.

on the campaign trail is a variation of this: “I want to help every child live up to their Godgiven potential.” Though it may not seem like it, she is implicitly telling voters that God has chosen her to help fulfill the potential that He has given to His children. Clinton seems to feel as if she is the prophet that has been sent to lead the people. Other candidates use more explicit language. Ben Carson, for instance, told Fox News two years ago that he would only run for president if “God grabbed me by the collar and asked me to run.” Dr. Carson and God were apparently in communication in the months following that statement, since Carson did eventually decide to enter the race. If God asketh, then God endorseth.

“No other endorsement could ever count as much as God’s in a country where 88 percent of the population believes in His existence.” These endorsements factor so heavily into the presidential race that the website FiveThirtyEight has created an entire project devoted to tracking the “endorsement primary.” This is done through a point system that assigns values to different endorsements; governors’ endorsements count more than senators’ endorsements, which count more than representatives’ endorsements, and so on. There is, however, one endorsement that almost all candidates seek—and one that many candidates concurrently claim to have received—that doesn’t fit any of these categories: an endorsement from God. Candidates seek God’s endorsement in many ways. Some use implicit language, while others choose to take a more direct route. Take Hillary Clinton, for example. Democrats are not known to seek out the religious voters, but Clinton tries hard to get an endorsement from the Almighty. One of her favorite phrases

Let’s see if the pattern of soliciting God’s endorsement holds up for candidates who haven’t fared as well as Clinton or (preDecember) Carson. Up next: Scott Walker. In his first letter to his supporters, he wrote, “I needed to be certain that running was God’s calling—not just man’s calling. I am certain.” And in bold, he wrote, “This is God’s plan for me.” It’s safe to assume that Walker may have had his ears clogged, since he ended up being the first Republican to drop out of the race. On to the candidate who is perceived to be the most evangelical of all: Ted Cruz. His father, who is a preacher, said that the “presence of the Holy Spirit” was in the room when his family was praying for guidance about whether Cruz should run. Cruz must have received the go-ahead from the Holy Spirit, since he left that room decided on running. Cruz is also known for often quoting from the Bible on the campaign trial. Seems like he’s trying pretty hard for that endorsement.

Jack Goldberg

T Another way that candidates have sought to gain God’s support is by seeking out the endorsements of religious leaders. One candidate who has used the strategy is Donald Trump. The Donald has been endorsed by popular evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University. Trump has also started opening his rallies with prayers delivered by ministers and preachers, further adding to his endorsements from religious leaders. It seems like many candidates have, in some form, heard the word of God. Their strategy on this issue seems clear; God’s, on the other hand, does not. Judging by the number of candidates who claim to have received His endorsement, one could say that the representative in the robe can’t seem to make up His mind! It seems fairly evident that all candidates want (and actively seek out) God’s endorsement. This is because no other endorsement could ever count as much as God’s in a country where 88 percent of the population believes in His existence. For most of these people, God is very important; He has claim on territory that no politician will ever be able to have. An endorsement from Him would be the single biggest voteshifting endorsement in history—now, if only a candidate could prove they actually got it.

Reuben is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at reuben.siegman@wustl.edu.

here are a number of ways by which politicians rig the election process, from voter ID laws to manual voter registration to the long-outdated Electoral College system. Arguably the most effective way to skew the vote, however, is also one the oldest: gerrymandering, the practice of redrawing a state’s congressional districts in ways that will gain one’s own party extra representatives. Since those districts are drawn every ten years by the state legislature, the party in power at the end of each decade can easily rig elections in their favor for the next. Gerrymandering been in use almost since the country’s founding, and no other tactic is as widespread. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, it has yet to gain sweeping national attention as a major problem on the same level as issues like campaign finance reform. Many people know little or nothing about gerrymandering, and many of those who do misunderstand how it works. One common misconception is that gerrymandering involves drawing your own party as many safe districts as possible, populated almost entirely by voters of your own party, where your candidates can be elected without fear of meaningful competition. This fits with the equally common idea that gerrymandering encourages the election of partisan, polarized politicians. On the contrary, gerrymandering involves squeezing all of the opposing party’s voters into a few, now overwhelmingly partisan districts, so that your own party can win, though not as safely, many more. An example: you are the Republican Party in a state with 40 red voters and 60 blue. As is, out of a total of five representatives being elected, you should logically get two of them. Through gerrymandering, however, you can create two districts populated entirely by Democrats and split the voters 2/3 Republican and 1/3 Democrat for the remaining three, taking home one more congressman than you might otherwise.

The Supreme Court has effectively said, “We will not help to fix the problem, but don’t worry, fixing the problem is not illegal.” Democracy suffers when gerrymandering becomes commonplace, and unfortunately, it is—43 states engage in the practice. Here are a few examples to illustrate the extent of the problem: Florida is considered a swing state, voted for Obama in 2012, and polled Democratic 39-35 in 2014, but they have 17 Republican congressmen to the Democrats’ 10, and the State House of Representatives swings Republican 82-37. Maryland votes Democratic 55-27, which is a sizable lead, but not sizable enough to merit their seven Democratic congressmen to the Republicans’ one. Michigan voted for Obama in 2012 and polled Democratic 44-37 in 2014, but they have 9 Republican congressmen to the Democrats' 5, the State House of Representatives swings Republican 63-47, and the State Senate 27-11. Missouri polled Republican at a slim 44-39 in 2014 and has a Democratic governor, and somehow the state’s congressional delegation swings Republican 6-2, and the State House of Representatives goes Republican by a massive 118-44. New York, as of 2014, votes Democratic 49-24, voted for Obama twice, and has a blue governor, yet the State Senate is Republican controlled. North Carolina is expected to be a swing state this election cycle, and voted blue in 2012, yet the Republicans have huge majorities of 74-46 in the State House, 34-16 in the State Senate, and 10-3 in the state congressional delegation. Ohio is a swing state and voted blue in 2012,but

its congressional delegation goes red 10-4, as does its State House 65-34 and its State Senate 23-10. Pennsylvania is a swing state leaning blue with a Democratic governor, and yet its congressional delegation goes 13-5 Republican, its State House 119-84 Republican, and its Senate 30-20 Republican. Virginia is a swing state that voted for Obama in 2012 and has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators. The state’s congressional delegation goes Republican 8-3, and its State House of Representatives goes Republican 66-33. These are just a few of the 43 examples available. Analysts have found that in 2012 the Democrats received a total of 18 fewer seats in the House than they should have, after some Democratic and more Republican gerrymandering. This is not acceptable in a democratic society. There are those who feel we’ve won a major battle with last year’s Supreme Court decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which struck a blow against gerrymandering by allowing states to have their districts drawn by independent, nonpartisan organizations. Seven states have taken advantage of this, but it’s not the victory it seems. The Supreme Court has effectively said, “We will not help to fix the problem, but don’t worry, fixing the problem is not illegal.” This victory is too small. While gerrymandering exists, we will never get remotely close to a democratic government that truly represents the will of the people. Jack Goldberg is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jackgoldberg@wustl.edu.

political review | national

What “Take Our Country Back” Really Means

he wanted to change the country; he's doing it in a way that is robbing us of everything that makes us special.” He also recently stated, “I am convinced if this president could confiscate every gun, he would.” Rubio’s incessant attacks on Obama are misleading and border on conspiracy theory. To disagree with a president is fine, but it is dangerous to accuse a president of purposely trying to bring down America and disregard the Constitution. The country needs to return to a time when we could disagree but still respect the other person—not fan the flames about how the other side is trying to bring down the moral fabric of America.

David Flasterstein | Illustration by Zeke Saucedo

he Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party. Or, more precisely, the Tea Party is trying to take the country back from liberals, freeloaders on welfare, immigrants, minorities, and, of course, President Obama. Although the number of people identifying as Tea Party supporters has declined from 30 percent in 2010 to 17 percent today, three of the major Republican front runners—Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio—embody Tea Party beliefs and are each trying to take our country back in their own ways. Their success, however, is bad for the country as they do not like compromise and will take America in a sharply conservative direction. The Tea Party began as a grassroots protest movement against the policies of President Obama in 2009. Rick Santelli, a CNBC commentator, burst into a tirade against Obama’s plan to help people struggling to pay their mortgages. He screamed, “The government is rewarding bad behavior,” and he invited capitalists to a Chicago Tea Party to protest policies that “subsidize the losers’ mortgages.” Thus, the Tea Party was born. Protests spread throughout the country as conservatives took to the message of “taking our country back” and fighting the changes ushered in by the Obama administration. According to Theda Skocpol, a Harvard sociologist who studies social movements, the Tea Party was built on local chapters where people gathered to protest, talk, and ensure that Republican elected officials were staying conservative. In the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, several Tea Party candidates dominated Republican primaries and elected far right candidates to Senate and House seats. Currently, 42 congressmen are members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group dedicated to advancing the Tea Party agenda. The Tea Party has shown their strength in Republican primaries where low turnout has allowed them to defeat moderate Republican candidates. Marco Rubio, a staunch conservative, managed

to push Charlie Crist out of the Republican race for Senate. In Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, a Tea Party candidate, beat a popular former governor to win the primary, but lost the general election in a landslide. The Tea Party is a fiercely conservative movement that disdains compromise. Skocpol says Tea Party activists distinguish between hard workers—retirees and veterans—and welfare recipients, who are seen as freeloading off taxpayers. Members of the movement revere the Constitution as a holy, unchanging document. They hate illegal immigrants, claiming that they take jobs from citizens and use government welfare without paying taxes. They think today’s young people are overly entitled and lazy. The main split in the Tea Party lies between libertarians, who believe in a secular government, and the religious right, who believe in bringing religion to the government. Barack Hussein Obama epitomizes anxieties and anger of the Tea Party. Many conspiracy theories have spawned from these anxieties—running the gamut from Obama being a Muslim, to him being a foreigner, a Communist, and a Nazi. The Tea Party believes in governing without compromise. The moderate way to look at governance is to understand that the U.S. is composed of many interests and many ideologies, almost all of which deserve to have some influence on government policies. Governing is the process of bringing cohesion to a disparate nation so that everyone feels they have a fair chance to contribute. Sometimes groups have more power, like when Republicans or Democrats control any of the branches of government, but everyone still has some say. Tea Partiers are absolutist; they think their ideology is the only correct one, and that liberals are not people with a different viewpoint, but enemies of America. They want to “take our country back,” not work to govern it with the input of the many disparate groups that live here.

The Tea Party have certainly taken over the Republican party with their fears that American values of hard work, reverence for the Constitution, and religious faith are being trampled by the liberal age ushered in by the Obama presidency. Maybe the Tea Party is a reaction to the way the Democrats governed in the wake of the Great Recession and Obama’s election. In 2008, Democrats came to Washington through the president, 60/100 seats in the Senate, and 255/435 seats in the House, so they could effectively pass any legislation without any Republican votes. The Democrats passed the stimulus, Obamacare, and Wall Street reforms without Republican votes. These laws were very liberal and angered many Republicans who felt the country was moving in a sharply liberal direction. The Tea Party movement developed as a response to these liberal policies. The actions of both Republicans and Democrats led to the current situation where many Tea Party members feel like they don’t have a say in government, and, thus, they have responded by moving to “take our country back.” No one has tapped into the fears and the anxieties of the Tea Party like Donald Trump. Before he was a presidential candidate, he was the de facto leader of the "birther" movement of Tea Partiers who believed Obama was a foreigner with a forged birth certificate. He burst onto the presidential scene by announcing that he would build a wall along the Mexican

border. His reasoning follows, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” He has taken very few policy positions, but the ones he has taken all speak to the concerns of the Tea Party. He wants to increase benefits for veterans, negotiate better trade deals with other nations, and end political correctness. David Axelrod, a former advisor to President Obama, has called him the “anti-Obama.” Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” might as well be “Take Our Country Back.” Both phrases speak to conservatives’ hatred of Obama and liberals, and their desire to radically change American public policy. Ted Cruz has tapped into Tea Party members' desire to take their country back in a different way.

Throughout his campaign, he has elevated himself as a “consistent conservative” who never backs down on his principles and is unwilling to compromise. Ted Cruz led the charge to shut down the government in 2013. After winning the nomination in Texas’ Republican race for the Senate, he said, “We are witnessing a great awakening. Millions of Texans, millions of Americans are rising up to reclaim our country, to defend liberty and to restore the Constitution.” Marco Rubio has tried to mix his Tea Party message with a new conservative ideology that helps the poor succeed and includes minorities. In the New Hampshire debate, he repeated four times, “And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.” To clarify this opinion, he said in an interview with ABC, “What he's trying to do to America, it's part of a plan. He has said

John Kasich has been one of the few Republican candidates to reject the rhetoric of “taking our country back.” He has run a campaign that emphasizes bringing people together and helping those who “live in the shadows.” He has stated, “We've got to unite our country again, because we're stronger when we are united and we are weaker when we are divided.” His campaign has been respectful and has stayed away from slandering other candidates. Of course, he has not been too successful since he is polling at nine percent nationally. Perhaps his message of hope and unity will gain steam after his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary. So will the Tea Party “take our country back” this election? They have certainly taken over the Republican Party with their fears that American values of hard work, reverence for the Constitution, and religious values are being trampled by the liberal age ushered in by the Obama presidency. We cannot let the ideas of the Tea Party take over this election. Our country needs a president with a steady hand and a knack for compromise to unite us in order to solve our pressing problems. Instead of taking our country back, let’s live in it together.

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

YOUR IDEAS HERE

wupr is always accepting submissions from washington university undergraduateS.

SEND YOUR IDEAS TO EDITOR@WUPR.ORG MEETINGS ON THURSDAYS AT 7PM IN THE PRINT MEDIA STUDIO (3RD FLOOR DUC)

political review | INTERnational

Unfair Elections: Canada and Electoral Reform

that their vote won’t go to waste if they vote for a smaller party candidate who they prefer to a big party option. This would allow smaller parties to flourish, creating more opportunities for coalition governments and compromises that reflect the interests of a larger segment of the Canadian electorate.

Michael Fogarty | Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

anada’s recently elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised many changes following his Liberal Party’s victory, which ended 10 years of Conservative rule with a commanding majority in Parliament. Trudeau has promised to address many liberal Canadians’ priorities, including raising taxes on the rich, increasing government spending on infrastructure projects intended to boost Canada’s struggling economy, and the legalization and regulation of marijuana. One of the more surprising items on his reform agenda is electoral reform.

candidates. In this election, the Liberals won 39.5 percent of the popular vote, but managed to pick up 184 out of the 338 seats, or 54.4 percent, a 14.9 percent difference. The plurality system is not a faithful representation of the will of the people, and the distortion gets worse in a multiparty system like Canada’s due to the dilution of votes between more political parties. Trudeau believes that the drawbacks of the plurality system—disproportionate representation and strategic voting— warrant reform. He asserts that as a modern democracy, Canada should embrace a system

The plurality system has several key drawbacks that warrant the consideration of these alternative electoral systems. Canada currently uses the “first past the post” or “plurality” voting system, similar to the process used for state and federal elections in the United States. In this system, the candidate with the highest number of votes in a certain district wins the seat. This winner-take-all approach, while easy to understand, has some serious drawbacks. It allows for a party to win a majority of seats in Parliament while winning a substantially lower percentage of the popular vote—which is exactly what Trudeau’s Liberal Party did in Canada’s recent election. In order to win a district or riding, a candidate needs to have more votes cast for them than for anyone else. In a two party system like the one in the United States, this translates to majority rule, but in a multiparty system like Canada (five parties won seats in Parliament in the federal election last fall), a candidate can win substantially less than half of the vote and win the seat. For example, a Liberal candidate could win 30 percent of the vote in a specific district, with the rest of the vote split between other

that better reflects the will of the people, one that encourages them to go out and vote for the candidate or party that they believe in. Although Trudeau has not made any specific proposals, he has created a multiparty committee to make a recommendation. The plurality system has several key drawbacks that warrant the consideration of these alternative electoral systems. First, disproportionate representation discourages voters from coming out to the polls. If a Canadian voter who supports the Liberal party knows that their riding leans heavily Conservative, then they will be less likely to go out and vote because they believe their vote is meaningless. This same conundrum exists in the United States: Democrats in heavily Republican states like Texas and Republicans in liberal havens like California will display similar tendencies. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where the party that is perceived to have an advantage will win because supporters

for the underdog party won’t bother to vote, ensuring a victory for their opponent. The plurality system also has another major drawback: the third party problem. The presence of more than two choices warps voters’ true preferences and encourages strategic voting. This creates a situation where voters must choose between voting for their preferred candidate and voting for someone other than their first choice in order to prevent an undesirable outcome. For example, in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won 48 percent of the vote, Al Gore won 48 percent of the vote, and Ralph Nader won 3 percent of the vote. Most Nader supporters preferred Gore to Bush, so in a race without Nader, Gore would have been expected to win. The presence of the third option changed the group’s overall preferences from Gore to Bush, even though Nader’s supporters would have preferred a Gore victory. In the 2000 election, a Nader supporter who voted for Gore to prevent a Bush victory would be an example of strategic voting. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfect voting system. Economist Kenneth Arrow, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, mathematically proved that no voting system can exist that meets three criteria of fairness. Arrow’s impossibility theorem states that it is impossible for any voting system to give all voters equal say in the outcome (i.e. not a dictatorship), be Pareto efficient, and not violate a principle called independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA). Pareto efficiency is a state where no one’s welfare can be improved without negatively impacting anyone else’s well being. IIA essentially states that the presence of a third option should not alter your preference between two other, totally separate, choices. In politics, IIA manifests as the third party candidate problem.

Instant runoff voting has already been successfully implemented around the world. It is used to elect members of Australia’s House of Representatives and Senate, as well as presidents in Ireland. In the United States, it is used for mayoral and city council elections in cities including San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, and St. Paul. IRV is also used to determine the winner of the Oscar for Best Picture. IRV is an intuitive, easy to use system that has been proven effective in many different circumstances, at a local, regional, national and nongovernmental level. It is a robust system with many advantages over the winner-take-all system currently in place, and itwould serve Canada well. One potential solution is a modification to the plurality system called instant runoff voting (IRV). It is a preferential system where voters rank their candidates in the order they prefer, instead of simply voting for one winner. If no candidate has a majority of number one preferences, the lowest placing candidate is eliminated, and his votes go to the second choice of the voters who selected him as their first option. This system eliminates the issue of strategic voting. If IRV had been in place for the 2000 presidential election, all of Ralph Nader’s votes would have gone to Al Gore, who would have been the Nader supporters' second choice, and Gore would have won the election by a comfortable margin. Another option is to choose a system that aims to achieve proportional representation, such as the single transferrable vote (STV) system. STV maintains direct election of representatives by increasing the number of representatives in each district, which necessitates either the consolidation of ridings or a drastic increase in the size of Parliament. Voters rank their preferred candidates, and once a candidate has received enough votes to win one of the seats, the rest of their supporters’ votes get transferred to their second choice candidate. This process repeats until all seats have been

filled. In contrast to the plurality system, STV ensures that every vote in an election counts. Canada needs to embrace a new electoral system as an improvement over the plurality system. The plurality system is too simplistic for a modern democracy. It discourages voter participation and doesn’t encourage voters to show their true preferences. The instant runoff voting system, then, is the best option for replacing the plurality system in Canada. IRV would retain the same ridings as the current system, so there would not be an expensive and contentious redistricting process. Trudeau agrees with the need to retain local representation and told the Canadian Press in December 2015, “The fact that every single politician needs to earn the trust of a specific group of constituents who cover the broad range of Canadian public opinion strengthens our democracy.” Retaining local accountability is a key feature of representative democracy, and IRV maintains this crucial link between the voters and their elected officials. One of the main advantages that instant runoff voting has over the plurality system is that it encourages voters to express their true political preferences. IRV eliminates the necessity of strategic voting by ensuring voters

Canada should embrace electoral reform as a measure to strengthen its democracy. Although no system can be perfect, both the instant runoff voting and single transferrable vote systems are substantial improvements over the plurality system that is currently in place. IRV in particular would provide a significant improvement over the plurality system, while not imposing the same transition costs that STV would. While neither IRV nor STV is as simple as the winner-takes-all system currently in place, both systems would improve Canada’s democracy because they reduce incentives for strategic voting, thereby better reflecting the beliefs of the citizens, and encouraging voter turnout by ensuring that every vote has an impact on the results of the election.

Michael Fogarty is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at michael.fogarty@wustl.edu.

political review | INTERnational

Israel, Where Has Your Zionism Gone? Tomek Cebrat

t is difficult to be considered a true patriot in modern Israel. Zionism, a belief in building a Jewish nation-state in the Land of Israel, was used as a basis for the state’s establishment. While that may have been the purpose of the word in the past, many conversations with young Israelis have led me to understand that today, the word “Zionism” has become the domain of the right wing and its narrow security-oriented platform. An understanding of Zionism thoroughly different from the one promoted by the current government still prevails in the principles of an Upper Galilee Mechina (Hebrew: “preparation”), a highly selective year-long program where young Israelis are prepared for officer positions in their future obligatory military service, and for social leadership and civic engagement roles later in life. Thanks to the hospitality of a friend, a participant in the program, I visited Israel this January and attended the Mechina’s activities, where I investigated the ways in which Israeli history and politics are taught to an exclusive group of potentially influential Israeli citizens. After four days, I left with memories: of the participants discussing how to make their personal lives more similar to those of the pioneers who started building the modern Jewish civilization in Israel in the early twentieth century, of daily classes filled with debate about the Israeli domestic social, economic, and legal system, and of their accounts of community service projects they regularly perform in local schools. Life in the Mechina embodies the principles of Labor Zionism, the dominant version of Zionism in Israel’s earliest years. This philosophy called for the establishment of a Jewish nationstate based on the ideals of democracy and social justice. These values are held by many Mechina participants who feel alienated by the modern political discourse, which they say has thoroughly abandoned Zionism’s vision of social welfare. Indeed, Israel, despite its relative wealth, ranks behind most of its OECD peers on various social welfare rankings, which are important indicators of social justice within a country. And as I also noticed, the country’s

lack of a true Zionist vision is not only harmful to its average citizens, but also to its relations with neighbors in the region.

“Very few founders remain” Being in the Mechina, half a kilometer from the Lebanese border, felt alarmingly normal. Special security measures were in place because of recent tensions in the area with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Islamist militant group, but the participants were simply waiting for nighttime excursions to local restaurants to be allowed again. Occasionally, they talked about emigration. In Israel, uncertainty about the future is part of everyday life for many young citizens, but this often has more to do with the high costs of living and the inaccessible prices of houses and apartments in big cities, than with the constant threat of terrorism. In addition to the high cost of living, they also fear deepening social stratification, the highest poverty rate among OECD countries, and a prediction by one of the participants that they, talented young people in a selective program, “will all be lower-middle class.” Only after considering all these factors can we comprehend the extent to which even outstanding young Israelis have few optimistic perspectives for a future in their country. The world within the Mechina and the world outside it represents the self-contradicting attitude of the Israeli government. In the Mechina, young people receive an education deeply rooted in the glorification of LaborZionist pioneers and principles. But as soon as they finish the program, and later, their military service, they will join the millions of young people in Israeli cities who have been abandoned by the housing market, politicians, and social welfare; these are renouncements that should not happen in a state so deeply rooted in social welfare Zionist principles. The Mechina program is based in the kibbutz Ma’ayan Baruch, one of many farming communities built by Jewish settlers when Palestine was still a British mandate. Kibbutzim (plural of ‘kibbutz’) embody the ideas of thinkers such as A. D. Gordon, who argued in

his essays that through “national work” and shared cultivation of land, Jews, as a nation in the Land of Israel, may realize “the ideal of justice in economic and in social life.” And, in fact, while few young Israelis choose to live in a kibbutz, many would read these words as an unfulfilled promise of a better Israel. There was almost a strange feeling of worship when on one afternoon, the participants were discussing extracts from Gordon’s personal journals. The theme of the reading and discussion was “disappointment,” and we were discussing Gordon’s criticism of the pioneers, who, disappointed with the Zionist enterprise, were returning to Europe from the Ottoman and British Palestine. But one participant’s comment, about the disappointment of their older sibling, who for many months struggled to find a reasonably priced apartment near her new workplace, shifted the discussion to the theme of a modern disappointment, one with the government’s policies. And when during a conversation about the kibbutz a friend told me that “very few founders of Ma’ayan Baruch remain,” I knew he was really saying that few young people can replace the older generation of Zionists because few still believe that Zionism’s promise may be real or achievable.

It looks as if since 2011, consecutive governments of Binyamin Netanyahu, who has held power since 2009, have succeeded in making the public very apprehensive of protests and demonstrations. not long after a series of large national protests in 2011 that were motivated especially by the rising costs of housing. It was the last time that Israelis massively stood up for a belief that security concerns can be reconciled with standing up against the government and demanding better social welfare.

Disappointment and Normalization

It looks as if since 2011, consecutive governments of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has held power since 2009, have succeeded in making the public very apprehensive of protests and demonstrations. When during a class in the Mechina a lecturer showed pictures of protesters and argued for reviving the public’s demands for social justice, participants responded with skepticism. Despite their awareness of the country’s social issues, many saw the people in the pictures not as their champions, but as negative examples of a national disunity, which they perceive as dangerous from a security perspective.

The disappointment of modern Israelis, rooted in the country’s current political and economic system, is linked to a much greater sense of powerlessness than the one felt by the pioneers. In fact, this sense of powerlessness helps uphold the dominant modern discourse of Zionism, which leaves the social welfare component of the ideology well aside. Studies cited by the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz only a few years ago suggest that the modern experience of Zionism in Israel is composed only of a shared uncertainty about the country’s security and a dedicated support for the military. Sivan Klingbail and Shanee Shiloh of Ha’aretz write that “when the security threat mounts, the Israeli public views leaving as treason, and few emigrate at such times.” It should be noted that these words were written

These sentiments are epitomized by the public’s perception of the opposition Israeli Labor Party leader, Yitzhak Herzog. On one hand, his left-wing allies consistently accuse him of failing to lead the disappointed Israelis to the streets in protest. On the other hand, before last year’s general election, the common opinion among Israeli publicists was that to succeed, Herzog would need to convince Israelis that security and welfare were not mutually exclusive. Klingbail and Shiloh write: “The right and the left in present-day Israel are in dispute over one issue: where on our scale of identity we place Jewish identity. The more of a humanist and liberal you are, the lower you situate your Jewish identity.” These words show how Israeli politicians have redefined “Jewishness” as a synonym for the nationalism

of right-wing Zionism. It reflects the extent to which the right wing has monopolized Zionism by employing the notion of security to portray itself as the only legitimate political force in a Jewish state. The left would prefer to not make security its primary platform. However, because of the right’s fear mongering, it has been forced to adapt to the right’s securitycentered language or risk losing large numbers of popular support. The way in which security defines Israeli political discourse goes along with the normalization of the economic and military status quo in the life of the average Israeli, a normalization that is dangerous for the country’s development and for peace in the region as well. In fact, for young citizens of the country, spending life in the army is becoming one of few viable prospects; past officers maintain esteemed social statuses, and soldiers of many rankings receive housing, wage, and other benefits (including a lower retirement age) that guarantee stability for young people who fear they may never find it. Thus, while the conflict between the government’s securitycentered discourse and the Labor-Zionist education is ideological, a solution for many young Israelis is to be pragmatic and support the status quo. Israel does not have a good idea of how to organize itself internally and use its resources: though it has a GDP per capita three times that of Poland, it lags far behind in terms of education, and the fact that it has one of the lowest levels of civic engagement among OECD countries shows the society’s relative idleness in the face of rising social tensions. Both bottom-up and top-down, Israeli society is being transformed to only deepen these problems. Israel’s military situation and uncertain relationship with the Palestinian Authority and other neighbors become, ironically, the very essence of its sustenance.

Earlier this year, a writer at the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth enthusiastically endorsed a statement by Herzog, the Labor Party leader, that peace with the Palestinians is not viable in the immediate future. Such declarations may seem disappointing to those hoping for a quick settlement; however, they are also a rare instance of honesty in a country whose government’s deceptive practice has long been to feign two-state solutions that ultimately (and to no one’s surprise) fail, and are used to bolster its securitycentered platform. And as a result of the disproportionate focus on security, few areas have suffered as much as social welfare. Today, Israel’s young citizens in the Mechina, and in the whole nation, feel that their country lacks a vision for its future. Sure, many may share the values of the pioneers and early Zionists, but few have an idea of how to make them relevant to today’s situation. Likewise, many of them lack clear visions for their personal futures. And this lack of vision only makes more distant the prospect of Israel building internal prosperity, security, and sustainable relationships with its neighbors.

Tomek Cebrat is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at tcebrat@wustl.edu.