Rot & Rebirth

WUPR Washington University Political Review

ROT & REBIRTH

36.1 FEBURARY 2022 WUPR.ORG

Table of Contents 6

Rot & Rebirth Reversing the Generational Decay of Optimism

18

Tyler Quigley

7

Theme Art Daniel Moroze

8

Rotting Debates adn Rotting Democracy Robert Burch

National The Maori of a Galaxy Far, Far Away

35

Jason Liu

22

Mayor Wu's Victory: A Chance for Rebirth Nikhil Datta

23

Theme Art Ben Eskenazi

9

Our Home, Our Home Harry Campbell

24

Weakening the Filibuster Backfires Jeremy Stiava

10

Leftovers Can't Reform — They Can Only Rot Erin Ritter

26

Self-Perpetuating Poverty Matthew Shepetin

28 12

Facebook's Failed Pivot Neil Chopra

Paternalism and the Abolition of the Family Sophi Seley

13

Theme Art Ethan Loderstedt

29

Healthcare Must be a Human Right Ranen Miao

14

Trolley Failure May Cost STL $37 Million Emily Woodruff

30

The Criminalization of Hip-Hop Hussein Amuri

32 16

The Rebirth of Nostalgia Culture Kate Dickman

A Ripple from the Past: WU Political Journalism Jaden Lanza

33

The Limit of National Conservatism Will Gunter

International How South Korea's Online Right is Reshaping Politics Gabriel Squitieri

36

Imagining our Destruction Julian McCall

39

Theme Art Megan Orlanski

Editors' Note Executive Directors Alaina Baumohl Claudia Bermudez Editors-in-Chief Jaden Lanza Megan Orlanski

Front Cover Leslie Liu Theme Spread Eric Kim Back Cover Leslie Liu

Assistant Design Directors Eric Kim Shonali Palacios

Staff Editors Sophie Conroy Christian Monzòn Oliver Rosand Jack Waterhouse Features Editors Shonali Palacios Treasurer Larry Liu Web Editors Adler Bowman Evan Trabitz Social Media Editor Harry Campbell Podcast Editors Alaina Baumohl Alejandro Ramirez Erin Ritter Leah Witheiler

Dear Reader, The spring of 2022. Can you believe it’s already here?

Design Director Catherine Ju

Design Leads Lea Despotis Leslie Liu Jinny Park

“Forgetfulness of your real nature is true death; remembrance of it is rebirth” -Sri Ramana Maharshi

The last two years have featured a number of anxious times for most of us.

Global events unsettled health, politics, financial markets and supply chains, and the culture and discourse of our society has in some ways transformed completely. In the context of our theme, questioning whether all these events were net “better” or “worse” is misplaced. As the old decaying institutions of the world crumble, new ones will inevitably be reborn again.

Rot and Rebirth takes the cyclical nature of life seriously as a metaphor for social change and social decline. Much of history has featured the same fundamental association between rot and rebirth – old social and institutional arrangements erode and, through their breakdown, give life to a new socio-political reality. Ultimately, something new can be born only out of the remains of that which preceded it.

In the theme section, Kate Dickman reflects on how one can grapple with pre-pandemic nostalgia and the difficulties of adjusting to living in the present without looking back. Tyler Quigley takes on the increasingly pessimistic culture that has gradually built within American life, arguing in favor of the benefits that restoration of an optimistic attitude can bring. Finally, Harry Campbell writes a poem extolling the virtues of the mushroom compared with the entrepreneurial man and his disruption of the Earth’s ecology.

In the national section, Staff Writer Matthew Shepetin discusses the book “Evicted” by sociologist Matthew Desmond, chronicling the tremendous difficulties created by unstable housing and food insecurity among some of the most disadvantaged American residents. Featured writer Julian McCall writes about the immense danger posed by nuclear weapons, establishing the grim parameters of potential nuclear conflicts that could arise between hegemonic or regional powers. Providing cogent commentary on American party politics, Jeremy Stiava, Robert Burch, and Will Gunter all write their own pieces about issues related to the Democratic and Republican Parties’ internal debates over issues such as the filibuster and the insurgent idea of “national conservatism.”

We hope that this publication will provoke cogent discussions and ruminations on the important political issues of today, bringing a new perspective on these topics through the model of rot and rebirth. Moreover, we are excited that this issue and all the upcoming issues of WUPR for spring 2022 will be again published in print! It is our intention that a new and improved Washington University Political Review will be born out of the lessons of our collective experiences and difficulties with the COVID-19 pandemic As ever, Megan Orlanski and Jaden Lanza Editors-in-Chief

Reversing the Generational Decay of Optimism Tyler Quigley, Staff Writer

“A

re you a glass half-empty or glass half-full kind of person?” is a question that most people have heard at least once in their life, even if it wasn’t framed in this exact manner. Asking someone if they are a pessimist or an optimist is often used as a personality gauge for individuals, a warm-up to what one should expect from an individual.

People who are optimistic are often characterized as naïve yet happy, blissfully unaware of the problems of the world around them, while pessimists are painfully aware of the world’s issues and forced into a constant negative mindset.

While these are exaggerations, the core differences between optimists and pessimists are as clear as day.

What has also become clear is that over the course of this decade, optimism has decayed and a mini-rebirth of wide-scale pessimism has taken over. A GALLUP poll conducted in December of 2009 states that 63% of Americans described their outlook of the United States over the next 20 years as optimistic or very optimistic. Compare this to another GALLUP poll conducted in January of 2022, which states that 58% of Americans are pessimistic about the pandemic improving, in spite of health officials stating the pandemic is easing up. So what changed? Where did our optimism go, and how do we get it back?

The knee-jerk reaction is that there is nothing to be optimistic about. Everything being shown on the news is terrible and depressing, and so everything in the world is terrible and depressing. The reason this line of thinking is ineffective is because there is an overwhelming amount of good news that happens every day that never gets noticed because it doesn’t sell as well. The lack of sales stems from the fact that most good things that happen are very gradual over time and don’t seem very impressive to the average reader when compared to the immediacy of negative events. Thus, people don’t know

6

WU Political Review

There are plenty of positive things happening in the world, and yet we choose to focus on the negative about the good things happening in the world; furthermore, when they are pressed about these events, they often answer pessimistically. A poll conducted by Our World In Data in 2015 asked people from dozens of nations about whether or not they thought global poverty had risen or dropped over the past 20 years 52% of participants stated that global poverty had gotten worse, with 28% saying that it stayed the same or that they did not know and only 20% stating that it went down. In reality, global poverty had dropped from 67.5% in 1995 to 46.0% in 2015. Despite this heartening achievement, people assumed the worst. There are plenty of positive things happening in the world, and yet we choose to focus on the negative – even when positive things do happen, most people don’t notice. Why? The logical conclusion to this question is seemingly that the bad in the world has become more prominent than the good in the world, thus making optimism unrealistic. This narrative is much stronger than the first example and cannot simply be disproven through statistics. This is a feeling that many people throughout the world, especially younger people , share, and simply showing them statistics about what good is going on is not going to change their minds.

As someone who thinks of themselves as optimistic, I would like to share my perspective on why I feel this pessimism is harmful for both the self and society as a whole. I can absolutely sympathize with the idea that the sheer number

of terrible things happening in the world overpowers the good. If nothing else, the past six years have proven this: two tumultuous elections, a two-year-long pandemic that has crippled the world and so many generation-defining events all blend together into a mass of tragedy.

However, I think these events lead to a marvelous revelation about humanity: we bounced back. Absolutely, things were lost along the way – jobs , lives, the formalities of society – but we are still here.

The decay of optimism doesn’t have to be permanent And throughout all of this, I see people making an attempt to be better. I see people trying to make the best of the hand this world has dealt them, bettering themselves and helping others while they’re at it. This is why I’m optimistic, and why everyone should be too. Pessimism prevents people from bettering themselves; it feeds an obsession with how things could be better and prevents them from actually making the world better. The decay of optimism doesn’t have to be permanent. In fact, I think this decade is the time we return to our long-gone optimism and shove pessimism out of our lives. Hopefully, this isn’t too optimistic of me to think.

Tyler Quigley ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at q.tyler@wustl.edu.

Artwork by Daniel Moroze, Staff Artist

Rot & Rebirth

7

Rotting Debates and Rotting Democracy Robert Burch, Staff Writer

A

fter the disastrous showdowns between Trump and Biden in their 2020 contest for the presidency, the last thing people want to do is sit through another presidential debate. As it turns out, we might not get the chance to. Presidential debates could become a thing of the past due to a recent move by the Republican Party.

In January, the Republican National Committee (RNC) announced that if the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) did not implement changes that the RNC demanded, they would try to bar any Republican candidates from participating in CPD debates. Presidential and vice-presidential debates are a key part of the U.S. electoral process, helping millions of Americans decide who to vote for. If the RNC follows this plan, it could mark the end of the CPD and presidential debates as we know them.

The CPD is a nonpartisan organization started by both the Republican and Democratic parties with the goal of “taking control of the presidential debates.” While the commission has existed since 1987, presidential debates have been consistently held since 1976. Wash U has hosted more debates than any other institution, including four presidential debates (1992, 2000, 2004, 2016) and one vice-presidential debate (2008). Presidential debates follow the ideal that Americans should get to compare their candidates on a national stage. Although nowadays the internet might deliver extensive amounts of information about candidates, debates go farther, showing us candidates’ undoctored thoughts, beliefs, and actions. It is harder for candidates to just tell voters what they want to hear or manipulate speech excerpts to appear favorable when they are being held accountable on live TV by other candidates, moderators, and millions of Americans. Debates give Americans a glimpse into what a candidate’s presidency could be like. Ending this process would destroy much-needed political transparency.

8

WU Political Review

The RNC has chosen to insulate their candidates from public accountability instead of running people who live up to the standards American voters deserve.

As the RNC and its candidates have become more right-wing, their respect for political norms has continued to rot. Even just examining debates, Republicans have trampled the tradition of respectful discourse. For instance, the chaotic 2016 Republican Primary Debates included a full stage of candidates trading personal insults, shouting over each other, and sharing bizarre stories about things like hand size. Additionally, Republican 2020 debate performances were characterized by Trump and Pences’ repeated interjection of childish insults and condescending interruptions over Biden and Harris. Finally, look at Donald Trump’s refusal to participate in two 2016 Republican Primary debates, Trump’s decision to skip the second 2020 debate, and David Perdue’s refusal to debate Jon Ossoff in their Georgia Senate runoff. There are countless examples, but the trend is clear: the RNC has chosen to insulate their candidates from public accountability instead of running people who live up to the standards American voters deserve.

Trump’s success in 2016, proves that skipping debates and ignoring political norms works in Republican primaries as candidates vie for the support of an increasingly anti-establishment voter base. However, all evidence suggests that debate skipping harms candidates in general elections. David Purdue’s refusal to debate Jon Ossoff towards the end of their senate runoff proves just that. The debate was

held despite Purdue’s absence, allowing Ossoff an uninterrupted opportunity to promote his own campaign while portraying his opponent as a “coward” who would not show up for his constituents. Ossoff went on to unseat Purdue.

Skipping general election debates also harmed Republicans in the 2020 presidential election.

Trump’s decision to skip the second debate and host a town hall came at a time he desperately needed to score points against Biden. Although the debate was canceled following Trump’s decision, Biden hosted a competing town hall and came out the night with higher ratings and a more solidified standing as a frontrunner.

Abandoning debates may work in primaries, but it is an extremely risky move in the general election.

By making a decision so provably damaging to their electoral prospects, the RNC is signaling they will continue to follow in Trump’s footsteps and employ electoral strategies aimed at bending democracy to their favor while calling fraud when these strategies fail. Instead of running conventional conservatives who debate better and appeal to more voters, the RNC seems intent on relying heavily on core supporters to deliver elections for extreme candidates. This analysis is further supported by the party’s recent election fraud conspiracy theories, their crusade against voter rights, and their gerrymandering of election maps to produce artificially red districts. It is up to speculation whether the tradition of presidential debates will be reborn in a way that helps restore the country’s rotting democratic processes. Whatever the case, presidential debates have caused important developments in past elections, have kept both parties in check, and were a tradition that brought elections closer to the people. As we enter an uncertain time for our country and democracy, this tradition and its benefits for our elections will truly be missed.

Tyler Quigley ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at q.tyler@wustl.edu.

our home, our home Harry Campbell, Social Media Editor Artwork by Ethan Loderstedt, Staff Artist The mushrooms grow in the wake of man They march to the city, hand in hand With stench of bark and blood of land To search for a place to call home Ugly and bloated and covered in mud, the man in the suit climbs out of his hole in the ground “THIS CITY IS MINE!” the man in the suit cries. “MUSHROOMS CANNOT LIVE IN HOUSES!” The mushrooms look at each other in confusion.

The tallest toadstool speaks for them all.

“We mean you no disrespect sir. But these houses are dark and dank. They would be perfect for us to grow in. Why must you yell at us?”

The man in the suit meant to frighten the mushrooms so that they would run away. He never expected mushrooms to be so reasonable.

The toadstool prepares to ask a follow up question. It wipes the dew from its cap.

“Furthermore, this city is empty. Is it not right for us to make it ours?”

The man in the suit tries to clean the mud from his ornate, pink tie, only managing to cake more on.

“I’m sure everyone will come back.”

He sits, avoiding eye contact with his new fungal friends. They respect his wishes and wait for him to change his mind. He sits until he starves, then keeps sitting. He dies of hunger, still sitting. When his flesh rots, the mushrooms feast. They move into the city with full bellies.

The mushrooms grow in the wake of man They live the city, hand in hand With stench of street and blood of land Never really thinking about the man in the suit Harry Campbell '23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences.

He can be reached at c.harry@wustl.edu.

Rot & Rebirth

9

Leftovers Can’t Reform— They Can Only Rot Erin Ritter

I

n 1776, a white man by the name of John Heath was rejected by two different exclusionary societies on his college campus. Outraged, he decided to cook up his own homemade society; one that would accept him and the leftovers of those like him (rich, male, and white.) Greek Life as we know it was only made popular when Robert E. Lee inspired his constituents to bond over their disappointment at the loss of the Civil War by resurrecting Heath’s recipe for elitist comradeship. The confederacy added its own violent twist that pervades Greek Life to this day: racist and misogynistic pride. Begrudgingly, white women were allowed to form their own tasteless substitutes almost 100 years later, and people of color were offered seating more than 100 years after that. Today, this tupperware container of privilege continues to allow its contents to ferment and contaminate the refrigerator that is higher education with the toxic rhetoric it was founded on.

Abolish Greek Life began in the summer of 2020 at universities across the nation after several decades of assault and discrimination at the hands of Greek Life members. This movement quickly spread to Wash U; victims and allies organized protests and spoke vehemently about their own experiences. And now, as the spring recruitment cycle begins again, the stench of rot is too pungent to bear. Recently, the Student Union (SU) sent an email to the class of 2025 warning them of the nature and history of Greek Life at Wash U. Signed off by several members of SU, the message has prompted hasty responses from the Women’s Panhellenic Association (WPA) and the Interfraternity Council (IFC). In an open letter addressed to the Wash U community, accomplishments such as the administration being “in full support,” members keeping up with the average campus GPA, and maintaining pride in past efforts for reform are noted. Interestingly

10

WU Political Review

When your leftovers begin to ooze, rot, and reek… do you take it out, pat it on the back, tell it to stop decaying, and throw it back in the fridge? Or do you clean out the damn fridge? enough, this letter fails to include what reforms have been made, though it does list the potential addition of anti-discrimination awareness programs, providing resources for survivors of sexual assault, and having “thought-provoking” discussions as future endeavors.

Several aspects of this letter are concerning. Bragging about university support is hardly evidence of morality; the administration is also in full support of companies that profit from and are directly involved in genocide, the fossil fuel industry, and the prison industrial complex. In addition, members being able to maintain the average campus GPA seems to be a standard for all organizations rather than a defense against claims of racism and discrimination. And while the letter leaves a bitter taste by failing to address reforms or changes that have been made, websites and social media are similarly lacking. In a joint anti-racism statement released in June 2020, the WPA and IFC reportedly began the development of implicit bias training as well as the implementation of a “$1000 inclusion fund dedicated to marginalized cohorts.” Active member fees for panhellenic and fraternity chapters are anywhere from $250-1200 per semester. With upwards of 500 new recruits this semester alone, can this be considered enough from

an organization with a reputation of weaponizing money?

Furthermore, the supposed “implicit bias training” seems unlikely to be effective.

There is no incentive for active engagement, nor is there punishment for failure to attend. Given the opposition to programs like these to begin with as evidenced by the staunch denial of need for any reform at all, it is implausible that members will absorb any information, if they even attend. This exemplifies the troubling reality that campus administration ignores: students of color continue to be the targets of racist attacks and discriminatory policies within Greek Life. In 2013, a group of fraternity members photographed Black students in Bears Den while chanting racial slurs. That same year, members were also pictured in front of an American flag while pointing guns at a peer with a towel on their head in an Islamophobic demonstration. Several past members have spoken out about abuses they have experienced during their time, including being discriminated against during the recruitment process, tokenized, pressured to distance from their minoritized identities, ignored by their peers, and worse. The seriousness of the situation is only amplified by the recent destruction of "The Story Never Ends" mural by a white supremacist group, as well as rampant Islamaphobic threats made in the months after a student demonstration on 9/11.

Wash U’s response to incidents such as these that blatantly jeopardize student safety, identical to that towards Greek Life, remains insincere and performative.

At least the aforementioned initiatives are meant to be preventative; by merely providing resources for survivors of sexual assault, it is insinuated that sexual assault in Greek Life is inevitable. In 2019, the AAU Campus Climate Survey showed that 42.5% of undergraduate women experienced nonconsensual sexual contact

involving physical force and inability to consent. These statistics are disturbing enough, but in 2018, a survey conducted by the WPA reported that respondents had experienced unwanted sexual contact from a member or members of every fraternity on campus. Survey creator, Rachel Lynn Braly, says she expected the survey would identify at least some fraternities with low incidences, but “the survey showed that’s a myth. There are no safe fraternities,” she says in a quote to StudLife. Currently, @ MeTooWashU on Instagram is conducting their own survey, allowing survivors of sexual assault from a member of Greek Life to expose which fraternities they belonged to. The list is ongoing, but so far it includes more than ten fraternity houses.

It is ignorant to think of these results as mere coincidences. Given this data and the influx of anonymous submissions on @ WhyIDroppedWashU, @AGLWashU, and @MeTooWashU Instagram pages demonstrating the involvement of Greek Life in these occurrences, it is shameful that the administration has not taken these accusations seriously. If Wash U claims to be in support of survivors, why do they ignore Greek Life’s history?

Despite the evidence proving the necessity of abolition, both the administration and Campus Life have continuously shown their support for Greek Life through inaction and vocal approval. Campus Life has defended Greek Life by dismissing its role in systemic racism, failing to condemn it despite the majority of the student body being in favor of abolition, and even advocating for first-year students to rush. At a panel held by the Student Union, Campus Life’s then-executive director and current Dean of Students, Rob Wild, stated that “we all share responsibility for” the racial harm Greek Life has caused Black and minority students. This statement is not

As the spring recruitment cycle begins again, the stench of rot is too pungent to bear.

If accusations of this caliber were made about any other student organization, it would have been disbanded and disciplined immediately. only inaccurate, it is reckless. Campus Life claims that “If students don’t want to be a part of, or have these groups on campus, they have no place on our campus.” Yet this is the extent of their support for the growing abolition movement. No further action has been taken, even after a survey from the Student Union revealed 65% of respondents called for abolition. The last point is simply cruel; it is common knowledge that first-years are the most susceptible to the violence perpetrated by Greek Life due to their inexperience and the tradition of tormenting younger recruits for entertainment. In 2015, the Task Force on Relationship and Sexual Violence reprimanded the university for failing to enforce their existing ban of all freshmen being at fraternity and sorority houses or events for at least the first three weeks of school, as freshman are particularly unsafe “from a sexual assault perspective.” Rob Wild has fiercely denied this fact, choosing instead to leave freshmen unprotected from the very organizations that take advantage of their vulnerabilities.

says, “In the end, it can’t really be safe.”

Lastly, the fact that a student organization has caused such harm within the community and been allowed to continue existing on campus is inconceivable. If accusations of this caliber were made about any other student organization, it would have been disbanded and disciplined immediately. As students at Washington University that are subject to the same rules for conduct that Greek Life seems to be exempt from, our demand is simple: Abolish Greek Life. The road to abolition is long and difficult due to protection from WashU administration, sympathizers within Campus Life, and the very same elitist gentry that Greek Life was founded by and for, but it is not far off. So far, several fraternities and sororities have been relinquished or dehoused, countless members have deactivated, and innumerable recruits have been warned away from these damaging organizations. We deserve camaraderie free from corruption, administration that protects students, and tangible action in response to student needs. When your leftovers begin to ooze, rot, and reek, do you take it out, tell it to stop decaying, and throw it back in the fridge? Or do you clean out the damn fridge?

Erin Ritter ‘24 studies in the School of Engineering & Applied Science. She can be reached at e.h.ritter@ wustl.edu.

Is “rebirth” of such an organization rooted in discrimination and violence even possible? Despite anti-racism, sexual assault awareness, and diversity programs taking place in Greek Life houses, incidences are still reported at an alarming rate. This is no mistake; it is merely the curdling of the complex as it does what it was made to do–uphold white, nepotistic supremacy to allow for the systemic oppression and abuse of everyone else. It is only natural for those who benefit from such an institution to defend it. In a quote given to STL Public Radio, former Beta Theta Pi member and upcoming graduate, John Harry Wagner,

Rot & Rebirth

11

Facebook’s Failed Pivot Neil Chopra

O

n October 28, 2021, the company formerly known as Facebook announced a monumental rebrand, changing its name to Meta and focusing on the development of what their CEO Mark Zuckerberg termed the “metaverse,” a far-off virtual reality where people will be able to “teleport instantly as a hologram to be at the office without a commute,” where “your TV, your perfect work setup with multiple monitors, your board games and more” will be “holograms designed by creators around the world.”

Such a pivot comes as Facebook attempts to stave off the perils of obsolescence, a technological fate for which there are no shortage of examples, from other social media giants like MySpace to internet companies like Yahoo! and AOL. Zuckerberg’s Facebook experienced perhaps the most rapid rise of any company in the 2000s, launching its founder to billionaire superstardom and shaping the modern media landscape. Now, after a generation of dominance, Facebook is floundering. While budding platforms like Tik Tok dominated users’ time in 2021, Facebook declined, with mounting controversy and plunging profits. Last week, Meta saw its stock plummet by 26% and its market value crash, as Facebook lost nearly half a million users. This came as investigations into Facebook’s role in political disinformation and the January 6 insurrection continued, and as lawmakers increasingly called for Meta to be “broken up” into smaller subsidiaries.

This reality is not lost on Facebook. A decline was anticipated, and was a major motivator behind the pivot to Meta. The company has attempted to diversify, investing heavily into Virtual Reality, and Zuckerberg has declared that “from now on, we will be metaverse-first, not Facebook-first.”

However, as much as Meta might want to separate its future ambitions from Facebook’s tumultuous past, it still draws nearly all its revenue from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and other social media apps, which is becoming more difficult as companies like Apple take steps

12

WU Political Review

to protect user privacy and limit the ability for companies to track users across their devices.

Facebook and Instagram especially have been sites of major controversy, with the former perpetuating conspiracy theories and disinformation during the 2016 Presidential Election and the latter pushing content promoting eating disorders and extreme weight loss to teenagers.

These issues do not subsist in isolation; they are but the most recent evidence of a long-existing rot at the center of Meta and Facebook’s core, which has allowed for Facebook to become one of the most dangerous platforms in the world for Democracy and Human Rights.

Facebook was at the center of the insurrection at the United States Capitol last year, with internal documents and reporting from The Atlantic establishing the company’s role in promoting authoritarian thought on its platform through its newsfeed and algorithm. Groups like “Stop the Steal,” which had hundreds of thousands of followers within hours of its creation, proved tremendously persuasive, and Facebook proved a critical breeding ground for individuals convinced by President Trump’s accusations of election interference to organize.

Though social media can and has been weaponized as a tool for political manipulation, Facebook in particular has been deliberately sluggish in its response, often ignoring or delaying the implementation of research commissioned by the company itself. A proposal to prevent people from seeing conspiracies reacted to by the user’s friends, which the company knew would limit violence, was rejected by Zuckerberg, along with a series of other recommendations. Fixes implemented for the 2020 election were rolled back after its conclusion, releasing misinformation which still bubbled below the platform’s surface.

By prioritizing algorithms and metrics over user well-being, Facebook has not only threatened its own survival, but that of democracy writ large in the United States.

While

Facebook

has

had

tremendously

damaging impacts on American political discourse, its effect on other countries, particularly those which are still developing and therefore more reliant on large companies like Facebook

Fake news spread on Facebook in Ethiopia has “fanned ethnic violence” because the company has refused to curtail its engagement-based algorithms. for communication, are far more harrowing.

The company is facing a lawsuit for hundreds of billions of dollars after its negligence in Myanmar contributed to a genocide of Rohingya Muslims, where, as happened in the U.S., inflammatory content was allowed to spread among extremists. Fake news spread on Facebook in Ethiopia has “fanned ethnic violence” because the company has refused to curtail its engagement-based algorithms.

As Facebook transitions to Meta, there is a real sense that, rather than confronting the tremendous devastation it has waged, the company is instead changing its mission and name in an effort to brush it aside. However, the events of the last week show that such a path forward is far more tenuous than previously expected. The company’s prioritization of growing engagement and users over all else has finally led to stagnation, and governments no longer seem interested in allowing the giant to regulate itself. If Facebook is to be rebirthed as Meta in the next decade, it must confront the rot which envelops its algorithms and platforms, or risk suffering the fate Chopra Neil of internet ‘24 studies giants in past. the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at c.neil@wustl.edu.

Artwork by Ethan Loderstedt, Staff Artist

Rot & Rebirth

13

TROLLEY FAILURE MAY COST STL $37 MILLION Emily Woodruff, Featured Writer Design by Jinny Park, Design Lead

H

een the trolley tracks in the street?

Almost certainly. Have you ever been out eating and seen the Loop to Forest Park Trolley signs? Most likely. Have you ever seen a trolley? Probably not. But then where’s the trolley? Well, you are not the only one asking, so is the federal government.

The Loop Trolley route contains 2.2 miles of track which run from the Loop to the Missouri History Museum. It cost a whopping $52 million (money that could have been spent on other public transportation projects), opened in November 2018, after years of “after years of delays”, and stayed in permanent service for a little less than a year.

The trolley was supposed to open again in April 2020, but the pandemic shut it down. Now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is demanding that the $37.45 million they gave to help fund the project be returned. This would be a huge hit to the city and endanger future federal funding for projects. The deadline to submit a plan to get the trolley back up and running has recently changed from February first to March first. But will city and county leaders be able to come together and create a plan to get the trolley back?

The trolley’s route covers parts of St. Louis City and St. Louis County, so County Executive Sam Page (up for election in 2022) and St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones (elected in April 2021 and serving her first term) are jointly managing the project. But neither of them wants the trolley problem on their agenda. In a statement, Jones said, “It’s been no secret that this is something that I didn’t support from the beginning.

However, it landed in my lap as mayor, and I’m

14

WU Political Review

committed to fixing it because St. Louis City and St. Louis County do not have $22 million to give back to the federal government.” The $22 million in this statement refers to the $37.45 million from the FTA. Some leaders have referred to it as $22 million and others called it $37 million.

The mayor has also stated, "[w]e all know that the Trolley is one of those projects that should've never been built … It's one of those stains on our region that we have to fix”. In a statement from KSDK in December, Page declared “[t]he St. Louis region hasn’t kept its commitment to run the trolley, which was required to receive those funds[.]” At risk is around $37-million in federal funding that’s come to the area. The two leaders tried to use a $1.26-million grant to get the trolley started again under the operation of Bi-State (the company that runs the Metro system), but the East-West Gateway Council voted this idea down because they believed the trolley project would fail and therefore the money should be spent elsewhere. Currently Jones and Page are researching and gathering advice for a new plan. But questions remain.

St. Louis has greatly suffered and continues to suffer during the COVID-19 pandemic. the day-to-day workings of local government can often fall through the cracks of people’s busy lives, especially amidst such a trying time. But from parks to road work and permitting, local government is the level that impacts people the most. Mismanagement of the Loop Trolley could cost the region millions, and possibly affect federal funding for future projects. In a statement Jones said, “[t]he failure to fix the Loop Trolley problem will leave us on the

Do you know if you live in St. Louis City or County?

What is the name of your representative?

Mismanagement of the Loop Trolley could cost the region millions, and possibly affect federal funding for future projects. hook for tens of millions of dollars, imperiling our entire region's ability to receive federal grants in the future, including from the bipartisan infrastructure law[.]” The Loop Trolley situation is an example of politicians’ failures hurting regular people. The rot is everywhere.

But what can students do?

As members of the St. Louis community, Wash U students can play an important role in maintaining local government. Do you know if you live in St. Louis City or County? What is the name of your representative? You can participate in the process. You can write letters, become informed on the issues, and express your opinions via the ballot box. 2022 brings midterm elections, but it also brings primaries and local elections.

Sometimes the best way to express your feelings

about government is through your vote. It is easier to look and only see rot. It is easy to believe that your vote, your opinion, your voice does not matter and will not make a difference, but it is important to remember that there is rebirth as well. Voters have enormous sway, especially in local elections. St. Louis is a vibrant city, and it is the responsibility of all citizens, including Wash U students, to help keep it that way.

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

Rot & Rebirth

15

The Rebirth of Nostalgia Culture Kate Dickman Artwork by Mingyi Suo, Staff Artist

A

h yes, 2020. Easily the most convoluted year many of us have ever lived. Fairly, one might assume that finding more complications within this time period would be next to impossible.

Clearly, we are going through a crisis. At this point, we have been in this pandemic for nearly two years. Nobody could have imagined what would happen to our society in these two years. Maybe more importantly, however, nobody could have imagined that we would still be here; that we wouldn’t have returned to normalcy by now. As a college student, I find myself rationalizing my experience here at WashU. That my experience is “the new normal” and that I’m not missing out on anything. Oftentimes, however, I tend to look back, wondering what could have been. Moreover, I think that many of us look to the past to feel better about our present situation. We love to reminisce, and that is not abnormal. I, for example, love to rewatch Harry Potter movies and relive the days when I would wave around a fake wand and imagine that I was casting spells against Voldemort himself.

Reaching towards the past and feeling sentimental is normal. In doing so, we allow ourselves to relive moments from the past over and over again. We once again get to feel the warm, happy memories from our childhoods envelop us and wish that things could go back to the way they were, before we got old.

I have to wonder, however, why I keep looking towards the past if I am supposed to be in the best years of my life? I didn’t like high school, yet I find myself remembering all the best times from those four miserable years. I remember the times we would drive around for hours, roam through the streets of Milwaukee, eat in crappy and cheap restaurants without masks, and I yearn for

16

WU Political Review

Many of us, without realizing it, use nostalgia as a coping mechanism. them. I don’t think, though, that it is these experiences I am nostalgic about. I’ll repeat myself: I did not enjoy high school. Rather, I am reaching back towards these memories of feeling free. I was 17, with my own car, little parental oversight, and my whole life in front of me. I was free in all the ways that counted.

Freedom feels fleeting in my life now. Yes, I can get in my car and get dinner, but I cannot eat inside the restaurant. Yes, I can go to school, but not without wearing a mask. These restrictions are important, and all of us should continue to do them. But one cannot help but miss the days where we could go wherever we wanted without fearing for our own health, and the health of our loved ones.

So, we live in the past, and relive the days when life felt easy, effortless, and safe. But I have to ask, is this good for us? Are we shielding ourselves from reality by cowering behind nostalgic memories? Is living in the past holding us back from living in the present?

During this pandemic, “nostalgia serves as a kind of emotional pacifier, helping us to become accustomed to a new reality that is jarring, stressful and traumatic” (NYT).

Many of us, without realizing it, use nostalgia as a coping mechanism. When we get stressed, sad, angry, or lonely, we like to transport ourselves to a time when we felt happy, free, and connected to our families

and friends. Certainly, many of us feel these feelings of uncertainty in our normal lives.

We struggle with school, family, friends, etc. on a normal daily basis. However, there is no doubt that the pandemic has exacerbated these feelings of uncertainty.

For months, we were locked in our homes, either alone or with family. Cooped up for months on end, with no idea of when or how we would be able to leave. For many of us, we saw a rebirth of nostalgia as a coping mechanism. No longer was this feeling fleeting. Now, in this pandemic era, it is a constant. We are, more so than ever before, looking into the past.

But now, in my opinion, we must shift our focus. We must look not into the past, but into the future. More importantly, we must learn to live in the moment. We have to learn how to enjoy our lives as they are, even if it doesn’t seem as easy as it could be.

Yes, it’s difficult. But life is difficult. We, as a society and as individuals, must undergo a rebirth in perspective. Living in the past is not an answer – the only option is to move forward. For me, I like to focus on what I have gained since the pandemic started: friends, new passions, and so much growth as an individual. All these things I love and value – would they have been possible without the pandemic? Although we have clearly lost a lot, it is clear that we have gained things along the way.

Kate Dickman ‘24 studies in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at k.dickman@wustl. edu

Rot & Rebirth

17

The Maori of a Galaxy Far, Far Away Jason Liu, Featured Writer Artwork by Eric Kim, Design Lead

Y

ou’re probably familiar with the more flagrant forms of indigenous representation in entertainment and popular culture — for example, earlier this month, the Washington Redskins finally rebranded as the Commanders after 87 years of playing under that racialized name in the NFL. Many readers could tease out why the old name could be considered offensive – the name focuses on a stereotyped slur for skin color and the logo inaccurately essentializes all Native American tribes as “people wearing headdresses”, etc. Stereotyping of Native Americans is likely a familiar topic to this paper’s US-centric reader base, and thus readers are likely to have an intuition as to how to judge specific instances of representation.

That intuition likely fails when trying to answer the question “Is the Star Wars character Boba Fett an example of offensive representation of Maori culture?”, because you may have some follow-up questions: “Who is Boba Fett?” “Who are the Maori?” “How is a space fantasy even related?” If these are questions you are asking, then let me provide some context, not merely to judge this example, but to rethink how we intuitively judge whether representation is “positive” or not.

--The Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, originating from the Polynesian migrations across the Pacific Ocean. This origin

features heavily in their oral tradition, celebrating the bravery of their explorer predecessors. So too did they celebrate conflict — it is written into their own creation myths, in which the god of war Tamatauenga literally consumes his brethren, turning them into the trees, fish, and other “common” (noa) things that make up the Maori world. The first observations European explorers ever made about the Maori highlight this warrior identity.

European occupation was a long way off. By 1830, despite there being an estimated 2,000 Europeans living among the Maori, they coexisted with (and some identified with) the native population. Such Europeans were known as Pakeha among the Maori, who valued what the Europeans had to offer, including weaponry and even their support as mercenaries in inter-tribal fights. Eventually, a combination of infighting and epidemics incite Great Britain to intervene and formally annex New Zealand in 1840.

Though initially guaranteeing autonomy for the Maori, the British Crown seized most tribal land in the aftermath of the New Zealand land wars of the 1860s, ensuring Maori decline. By 1900, the estimated pre-European population of 100,00 had fallen to 42,000. The Maori people’s health has never fully recovered from this decline, with a seven-year gap in life expectancy between Maori and non-Maori persisting since the 1990s. Overrepresentation in prison populations, depressed home ownership rates,

disproportionate poverty, and other societal ills continue to highlight the effects of colonization on the Maori.

Yet despite all of this, the Maori culture is seen to have gone through a revival. The interconnectivity of European and Maori society continued from their first interaction, with significant intermarriage between the two groups. Over time, Maori traditions were signifiers of not just an indigenous, but a national identity, driving a desire to preserve them and integrate them into a broader culture.

The perhaps most successful example of this revival is the Maori language, which is now an official language of the country, seeing usage in everything from public programming to casual slang and contemporary music. The government has set goals to teach the language in all schools by 2025 and to aim for 20% of the nation’s population to have basic literacy in the language by 2040. That’s a far cry from its banned usage in schools in the previous century.

On the flip side, this revival raises concerns of cultural appropriation. Perhaps the biggest signifier of this is the haka, a ceremonial Maori dance recognizable by its rhythmic chanting and stomping. Though it’s not just a warrior tradition, its association as a battle-ready performance of strength is the one that has persisted in popular culture, an association little different than what the first Europeans made about the Maori

being a proud warrior race. Today, the haka reappears in many forms: school performances, ambassadorial welcoming parties, and sport traditions that probably won’t be “Washington Commandeered” any time soon. Oh, by the way, it’s also used as a symbol of anti-vaccination protests. Because of course it is.

It's inarguable that the Maori people and culture would not have survived without the well-intentioned intervention and in part genuine self-identification of those not originally members of said culture. At the same time, part of the original intention behind these traditions has been superseded by an expression of an ill-defined, catch-all cultural pride.

Star Wars has become the newest example of this diluted representation. But in order to understand how this came to be, the intent behind it, and ultimately whether it should be applauded or condemned, we have to understand how an armor-clad bounty hunter with only four lines became so much more than his outward appearance.

--Boba Fett didn’t even have a name when he appeared in The Empire Strikes Back, but fans latched onto his cool demeanor, badass knightlike armor, and general mystique that kept fans talking about the character long after his

apparent death in the following movie. Perhaps it was this organic fan theorization that pushed director George Lucas to build a mythos behind the character when writing for his prequel trilogy. Boba Fett’s armor became the symbol of the Mandalorians, a proud warrior race that protected their traditions and armor with their lives.

Boba Fett got a father, Jango Fett, who would this time be an essential character to the plot of the prequel trilogy as the genetic origin for the Republic’s millions-strong clone army. In this way, Lucas had retroactively given birth to two new “peoples” from a single character, who now needed an actor to give it life.

Temuera Morrison had first achieved international fame in the movie Once Were Warriors for his role as the abusive patriarch of the Maori family central to the story. Around the same time, Lucas was filming in Sydney and thus relied on actors from Australia and New Zealand. According to Morrison, his casting as Jango Fett was a matter of happenstance.

Personally, I’m not so certain. Star Wars has a history of using racial stereotypes to inform worldbuilding. In the original trilogy, scenes set on the desert planet of Tatooine were filmed in Tunisia, which informed the usage of aliens as racial stand-ins; the Sand Peoples’ robed garb and savage violence are unflattering portrayals of Bedouin Arabs. The prequel trilogy of movies that Jango Fett comes from has been roundly

condemned for its usage of Arab, Jewish, Asian and even Caribbean caricatures for a slew of characters and races.

With that track record, I’m not sure the Mandalorians, a race identifiable more by their warrior emblems than their actual faces, and the clones, homogenized to the greatest possible extreme, can escape comparison to the Maori and how they’ve been assimilated both racially and culturally to the country at large.

Whether or not Lucas had Temuera Morrison’s Maori heritage in mind when making his writing decisions, this casting had permanent implications on the Star Wars mythos. Voice acting for future portrayals of clone characters were modeled after Morrison’s performance.

Morrison himself lent his voice to redub over actor Jeremy Bulloch as Boba Fett in new releases of The Empire Strikes Back. And now, Temuera Morrison plays a revived and aged Boba Fett in the flesh, first in his appearance in The Mandalorian and now as the star of his own show, The Book of Boba Fett.

By this point, the Maori inspirations have been made explicit. During shooting for The Mandalorian, Morrison apparently showed off his traditional haka dance. Creator Jon Favreau saw this and decided to find a way to incorporate this into the choreography for Boba Fett’s debut fight (in the process conflating the dance with

Part of the original intention behind these traditions has been superseded by an expression of an ill-defined, catch-all cultural pride.

The actual Māori actor is positioned as a culturally accepting “white savior” to the faceless, exoticized “members” of his own heritage. “fighting style”). To do this, they gave Morrison a custom-made quote-on-quote “Maori” weapon suited for the choreography, modeled off of a prop with existing Star Wars origins: the gaffi stick, the weapon of the Sand People. In The Book of Boba Fett, it is shown that Boba Fett befriended, fought with, and learned from the Sand People’s traditions, including how to craft a gaffi stick and even their traditional dance, which looks suspiciously similar to the haka.

Yes, the stand-ins for Arabs have now become stand-ins for Maori, and the actual Maori actor is positioned as a culturally accepting “white savior” to the faceless, exoticized “members” of his own heritage.

I think there’s genuine intent behind this retroactive recharacterization. The actor gets to associate his heritage with a generationally-beloved character. The Sand People get to be reparatively rewritten as allies of a hero, shifting the lens to show their way of life as deserving of fascination and respect. By proxy, they probably thought this was a positive representation of Maori culture. I, at least, can’t deny that these decisions have made the characters far more interesting and thoughtful than their original one-dimensional selves.

American caricature somehow representing a football team, a ceremonial dance somehow representing anti-vaccine protest, and a fictional tribe of cloth-clad raiders somehow representing Maori culture more authentically than the actor literally born in it.

When you choose to describe a culture in as simple of terms as “proud warriors”, you can put “positive” representation anywhere.

Jason Liu ‘22 studies in the Olin Business School. He can be reached at jliu1@wustl.edu.

But it goes to show how fluid racial representations become when you break them down into essentialized traits. This is how you get a Native

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

WUPR invites you to write or illustrate in our next issue.

To get involved visit wupr.org/contribute

Mayor Wu’s Victory: A Chance for Rebirth Nikhil Datta

O

n November 18, 2021, Michelle Wu was sworn in as Mayor of Boston. Since the 1930s, Boston has had a string of Irish American and Italian American male mayors, but Wu has finally broken this trend. Having grown up in Chicago and from a Taiwanese family, Wu attended Harvard University where she learned about Boston and came to recognize it as her new home. Since then, she has run a restaurant, worked in the legal industry, and been elected to the Boston City Council.

This past year, she ran as a progressive candidate to fill Martin Walsh’s position after he was appointed to serve as the Labor Secretary. Some of Wu’s notable initiatives include controlling rent prices, eliminating gentrification, and reallocating city contracts so that they support more towards Black-owned business. Although this may be seen as a just another Democratic candidate expectingly winning a race in a Democraticvoting state, Wu’s victory illustrates that Boston might be finally ready to move beyond its racist past and to reinvent itself as a fairer society.

Historically speaking, Boston has always been known as one of the most prominent progressive strongholds in the country. The home of progressive President John F. Kennedy, as well as other notable figures such as Ted Kennedy, John Hancock, and Paul Revere, Boston has a history of producing politicians who have fought for the rights of those who are not adequately represented and supported by their government.

Despite this legacy, though, on the national stage, many think of Boston as a center of racism. Recently, Brooklyn Nets Point Guard, Kyrie Irving, expressed his concerns about playing the Celtics in Boston because of the fans’ racist attitudes. A few days before the game, Irving stated, “Hopefully we can just keep it strictly basketball, there’s no belligerence or any racism going on, subtle racism and people yelling s— from the crowd.” Unfortunately, Irving’s sentiments were completely validated when a white Celtics fan hurled a piece of garbage at him as he left the

22 WU Political Review

The home of the progressive President John F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, John Hancock, and Paul Revere, Boston has a history of producing politicians who have fought for the rights of those who are not adequately represented and supported by their government. Despite this legacy, though, on the national stage, many think of Boston as a center of racism. stadium. While it remains unclear whether this attack was racially motivated, Boston has certainly amassed a reputation for being a racist city. Although white Bostonians tend to disregard these statements, Black and Brown Bostonians have repeatedly validated them. An article written by Dart Adams in The Bostonian further points out how the city has a dark history of pushing minorities to the side to give white individuals the spotlight. Boston Celtics’ legend Bill Russell has even publicly declared that Boston “was a flea market for racism.” Amidst all these statements, the election of Mayor Wu might serve as an initial indicator that Boston is ready for a progressive and minority leader to transform the city into a place where minorities

feel welcome.

While Mayor Wu has only been in office for a month, the ideas of change and rebirth have set the tone for her time in office. During her first speech as Boston’s mayor at City Hall, she mentioned making City Hall more accessible for individuals who are disabled, which might serve as an indication for what is to come. She also remarked, “We have so much work to do, and it will take all of us to get it done. So, let’s get to work,” setting a standard of change for her time in office. Throughout her campaign, Mayor Wu was a strong advocator for creating equality in the education and housing systems in addition to making a commitment to closing the racial wealth gap. Wu additionally openly acknowledged the city’s racist past and illustrate her resolve to implement policies that address problems, such as affordable housing for minorities going forward. Although it remains to be seen whether Wu is able to make these policy ideas come to fruition, the city has already implemented bilingual street signs throughout Chinatown to make streets more accessible for Mandarin speakers. Boston’s decision to vote Wu into office means that the city might be ready for the progressive change that people of color have been asking for.

Boston’s election of Mayor Wu encourages individuals to rethink the reputation that Boston has amassed as a racist city. While the election results might indicate that the city might be ready to move on from its racist and unequal past, Wu received racially motivated comments after her new indoor COVID-19 vaccine mandate. It remains to be seen if Boston is truly transforming into a place where minorities feel welcome and are not pushed to the side, but the election of Michelle Wu is certainly a step in the right direction.

Nikhil Datta '25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ndatta@wustl.edu.

Artwork by Ben Eskenazi, Staff Artist

Rot & Rebirth

23

Weakening the Filibuster Backfires Jeremy Stiava

T

he filibuster is a unique practice and frustration with it is not new, leading majority parties to weaken it over time, with the result of short-term benefits but longterm risk. The filibuster is unlike many other questions posed to our country. Its existence is not explicitly enshrined in our Constitution nor a particularly integral element to democracy itself. It is simply a norm or practice, built from the tradition of the U.S. Senate as a deliberative body, respectful to open debate and the rights of the minority party. The filibuster puts these ideas into practice, requiring a higher threshold to end discussions, debate, or negotiations on a topic, and giving minority parties the tools to block ideas. Despite the filibuster’s growing use since our formative years, its enforcement has always been by Senate rule, a type of order quickly editable by a simple majority decision.

With business running stagnant in the face of Republican obstruction, Democratic presidents and legislative leaders have on numerous occasions and varying success moved to weaken the filibuster rule by exemption. In 1980, in an effort to streamline governance, Democrats passed the first major weakening of the filibuster, a new budget reconciliation process that excluded nearly all economic measures from blockade. More recently in 2013, Democrats frustrated with Republican obstruction, achieved the same for federal judicial nominees. On each

The filibuster is a unique practice and frustration with it is not new, leading majority parties to weaken it over time, with the result of short-term benefits but long-term risk.

24 WU Political Review

While Democrats enjoyed unrestricted governance and hope for a more progressive agenda in the short term, in the long term these advantages quickly backfired once Republicans regained power. occasion, while Democrats enjoyed unrestricted governance and hope for a more progressive agenda in the short term, in the long term these advantages quickly backfired once Republicans regained power. We can only question what backlash would ensue if Democrats weaken the filibuster again.

Take 1: Democrats weaken the filibuster The first major weakening of the filibuster came in 1980, when Democrats exempted most budgetary matters from the filibuster, a tool used by conservatives for the next four decades. Since 1974, a scheme known as budget reconciliation has existed in U.S. Congress, intending to allow non-consequential deficit reductions to bypass the Senate without issue. But six years later, with its first implementation, infamous political gamemaker Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) used the expedited procedure to pass the annual omnibus budget that directs U.S. government’s major investments for the fiscal year.

Over the next 13 years, Byrd, with the help of Republican presidents solidified reconciliation under a list of guidelines known as the “Byrd Rule.” Meanwhile, Republicans started to take full advantage of the Democrats’ creation.

In his first year as president, Reagan guided through his signature 1981 budget using reconciliation, teaming up Republicans with sympathetic southern Democrats to “increase defense spending,” slash all other spending, and “cut taxes.” A report from University of California, Berkeley describes how the law sparked the nation’s debt crisis that continues to this day.

Reagan continued to pass one major reconciliation package for each of his 8 years in office, leaving his permanent mark on the U.S. economy and debt. His successor, George H.W. Bush, would continue his legacy to less success. In Bush’s first year, he used reconciliation to raise taxes and quell the debt Reagan had created.

This decision famously broke his promise to cut taxes, costing him re-election. If the filibuster had still applied to these bills, our national debt and Bush’s re-election may have been saved.

From 1994 to the present day, the reconciliation process Democrats invented was again used to overwhelmingly advance conservative policies, mostly tax cuts. In 1996, President Clinton, moderate Democrats, and Republicans passed a major overhaul and cut to the U.S. welfare system through reconciliation, allowing states their own latitude over welfare restrictions (like drug testing for the ‘War on Drugs’) and notably mandating recipients maintain employment. A 2002 report by EPI claims that the bill did reduce unemployment, but it failed to improve a person’s chance of escaping poverty while the number of people on welfare dropped 60%. Over Clinton’s eight years in office, he would again use reconciliation to cut Medicare and pass tax cuts for the wealthy. For the subsequent two decades, cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations became a recurring theme of reconciliation. In 2001 and 2003, the Bush Administration passed the Bush tax cuts, a series of reconciliation laws that “did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves,” as promised, “but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.” A decade later, President Trump would use the same tactics to pass the

Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017, a massive handout to corporations and the topic of the 2019 piece entitled The TCJA 2 Years Later: Corporations, Not Workers, Are the Big Winners.

Back in 1980, Democrats led by Senator Byrd invented a loophole to the filibuster that conservatives would take great advantages of for the next three decades, passing numerous increasing defense spending, decrease spending for everything else, cutting welfare with no effect, and cutting taxes for the rich and powerful.

Meanwhile, in a 30-year span, Democrats can only name two major accomplishments passed by reconciliation, ObamaCare and Coronavirus relief. But even then, while ObamaCare passed with 59 votes in the U.S. Senate, one vote shy of a supermajority, it was nearly repealed in 2018 by just one vote by Trump and other Republicans. If the filibuster had never been weakened by reconciliation at all, albeit a slightly scaled back ObamaCare (to account for the one more vote needed), would have never been at risk at all.

Many argue that the filibuster itself has a bad, even racist legacy, and thus must go. Others argue that trashing the filibuster will allow a more progressive agenda to flourish. Still others say it is vital to break gridlock and restore America as a democracy.

The filibuster is but a symptom to a larger problem its abolition cannot solve.

Take 2: Democrats weaken the filibuster again The second major weakening of the filibuster came quite recently in 2013, when the Obama Administration endorsed a scheme by Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to exempt federal judicial nominees from the filibuster, only for it to yet again backfire. When Trump took office in 2017, he immediately used the procedure to confirm a record number of loyalist judicial nominees and extend its privileges to U.S. Supreme Court picks. This second option allowed him to confirm Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the first three such nominees in U.S. history to receive less than 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to be confirmed. Through this Democratic-created loophole to the filibuster, Trump was able to systemically mark the U.S. judicial system with his legacy for a lifetime as Democrats stood defenseless.

history and at each crossroad where the filibuster was weakened. The above should show you that the filibuster is a dynamic, double-edged sword that has struck back at its reformers on numerous occasions. One can say the filibuster has been used by racists, it has, but weakening it empowered Trump’s judicial strategy and three Supreme Court picks that will reform policy for decades. One can say the filibuster has stopped the Green New Deal from passage, but weakening it has cut Medicare, welfare, and given handouts to the rich for generations. One could still say the filibuster is absolutely necessary to ensure voting rights, but does weakening it protect voting rights? Does weakening the filibuster stop the Republicans from reversing anything the Democrats do? Did it stop threats on ObamaCare? America has deep rooted problems, income inequality, political partisanship, a ballooning national debt crisis, and racial tension. Do we know how to solve these issues?

Not yet. But the filibuster is but a symptom to larger problems its abolition will not solve.

Jeremy Stiava ‘24 studies in the McKelvey School of Engineering & Applied Science. He can be reached at j.j.stiava@wustl.edu.

Take 3: The Democrats need to stop weakening the filibuster Despite the filibuster’s legacy of reducing government control, increases in defense spending, cuts to welfare that don’t improve welfare, cuts to Medicare, Trump’s judicial nominees, and numerous tax cuts, Democrats maintain increasingly poised to repeal or severely weaken the filibuster. Many argue that the filibuster itself has a bad, even racist legacy, and thus must go. Others argue that trashing the filibuster will allow a more progressive agenda to flourish. Still others say it is vital to break gridlock and restore America as a democracy. These arguments are not new, they have occurred over our nation’s

National

25

Self-Perpetuating Poverty Matthew Shepetin, Staff Writer Artwork by Mei Liu, Staff Artist

H

eadlines like “Halle Berry once slept in a homeless shelter” and “Oprah went to college on scholarship” create an idealized and unrealistic image of American egalitarianism. With the right mentality and a whole lot of hard work, just about anybody can “Pull themselves up by the bootstraps,” we’re told. Sure, for those that get lucky, the American dream can deliver exactly what we have come to expect: 2.5 children, a golden retriever, and a house with a white picket fence. But what about people who don’t have bootstraps? What about people who don’t even have boots? Most are forgotten, left behind to learn that more often than not, poverty only begets more poverty. Princeton sociology professor Matthew Desmond explores this phenomenon in his novel Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. Following eight families facing eviction in Milwaukee after the 2008 financial crisis, Evicted reveals that the costs of poverty— whether it be financial or psychological—often only lead to more poverty. Desmond gets right what many get wrong about America’s economic structure: Poverty does not exist because of laziness, complacency, or inadequacy. Poverty exists because we have failed to create social safety nets that prevent families from falling into a self-perpetuating cycle of loss, eviction, and debt.

Desmond’s novel opens with Arleen, a recently evicted mother of two living in a drab, overpriced, and dangerous apartment on Milwaukee’s North Side. Arleen and her children are facing eviction for the second time that year. After visiting 25 apartments across Milwaukee, Arleen finally found a landlord willing to rent to her back on the North Side. This particular apartment was far from Arleen’s first choice, but it was her last hope to find a place to stay before she and her boys were evicted. When Arleen called to secure the offer later that night, the landlord informed her that she had rented the apartment to a tenant with a better record. After hanging up, Arleen “let out a long sigh and balled herself up in a chair. ‘I’m back to square one.’” Just moments later, she got up, packed up some of her personal belongings, and got her two

26 WU Political Review

For someone dealing with the deepest levels of poverty, one bounced check, one broken window, one day of missed work, can begin a cascade of events ending in homelessness. children ready to go to the shelter. The family left their kitten, Arleen’s antique love seat, and other sentimental belongings behind. There would be no room for them in the crowded shelter.

The differences between stable and unstable poverty (what Arleen and her children are experiencing) are extensive. A family living just below the poverty line is most likely experiencing stable poverty. A steady and reliable income, even one that is exceedingly low, can provide sanctuary from the worst that poverty has to offer. A stable income means stable housing, stable education for one’s children, a more stable way of life.

“Residential stability,” Desmond writes, “begets a kind of psychological stability.” Housing stability allows individuals to build bonds and connections that afford greater satisfaction with one’s living situation. People constantly at risk of eviction—whether its unstable family structure or unreliable income—do not have this kind of luxury. Often, they see their housing circumstances as temporary or transitory. As a result, unstably impoverished individuals are less likely to cement themselves in a given community and less likely to secure long-term employment.

After a couple of weeks of living in an inner-city shelter, landlord number ninety rented Arleen a place on the North Side. But a series of misfortunes—an asthma attack, an unwelcome guest, and her brother’s funeral costs—resulted in another eviction. Even though Arleen was pretty

sure that the stated reason for her eviction was illegal, she did not have enough knowledge about her rights as a tenant to fight the landlord.

For the third time that year, Arleen packed up what little they had left and moved into a shelter.

As Arleen’s story reflects, one bounced check, one broken window, or one day of missed work, can begin a cascade of events ending in homelessness. “Poverty could pile on,” Desmond writes, “There [are] moments of calm, but life on the balance [is] facing one crisis after another.”

Primarily, this system is a result of our nation’s method of documenting eviction. No matter the circumstances, an eviction can stay on a tenant’s record for up to ten years. Whether it’s a consequence of job loss, family trauma, or any other misfortune, one missed rent payment will often lead to an eviction. Because most landlords and public housing projects refuse to rent to tenants with an eviction record, many are forced to accept sub-par housing or unfair rent rates in the name of shelter. Often, subprime renting schemes increase a tenant’s likelihood of eviction. Then, the cycle starts again. It’s easy to see how a single moment of bad luck can lead to months, even years, spent in unstable poverty.

Beyond the trauma of eviction, the state of unstable poverty has severe psychological consequences itself. Choosing whether to forgo paying the water bill or buying groceries for the weekend has implications well beyond physical well-being. The mere act of having to pick between two services necessary for survival is agonizing. Poverty can be so arduous that many have little emotional bandwidth to perform everyday tasks. Between searching for housing, moving, and trying to figure out where the next meal will come from, most individuals struggle to take the necessary steps toward escaping poverty.

Throughout Desmond’s time with Arleen, her ongoing distress is palpable; her inability to provide stability for her children slowly ate away at her. This was a common feeling shared by mothers experiencing poverty. “You could only

say ‘I’m sorry, I can’t’ so many times before we began to feel worthless,” Desmond says. Many mothers deem their children unworthy of help in an unconscious attempt to spare themselves.

Instead of acknowledging her inadequacy, Arleen would subtly tell her children that they were undeserving of more than she could give.

“Don’t be getting in the kitchen because I know you ain’t hungry,” Arleen would say when she didn’t have enough cash to stock her pantry at the end of the month. It was not Arleen’s intention to make her children feel unworthy, but her actions did so anyway. Of course, this behavior has a long-lasting effect on children of poverty. Children experiencing persistent poverty are more likely to report higher levels of unhappiness, anxiety, and dependence. These symptoms are often exacerbated by the stigma associated with homelessness, which infiltrates a child’s social relationships and development.

Instability means that children are less likely to form long-lasting social bonds and less likely to be self-confident, qualities vital to a child’s social and emotional development.

Individuals experiencing unstable poverty often feel that the hole is so deep that no amount of penny-pinching will allow them to climb out. Consider Lorraine, a middle-aged woman living in a Southern Milwaukee trailer park.

Instead of spending extra money covering rent or utilities, Larraine would often buy two-hundred-dollar beauty creams or expensive hair products to enhance her appearance. Larraine

operated under what her pastor called “Poverty Mentality.” Impoverished people “live with so many compounding limitations that it is hard to believe that [any] behavior would lift [oneself] out of poverty.” Instead, many attempt to “survive in color.” For Larraine, it was buying products to maintain her beauty; for others, it is gambling away what little they have left, even buying a lobster dinner on food stamps.

When Larraine was served with eviction papers, she applied for public housing. A few weeks later, she received a letter from the Wisconsin HUD office. Her application was rejected because of outstanding property taxes and her eviction history. Larraine knew that the first reason was wrong—she had never owned property—but she was too drained to deal with it. Even if she had the energy, she did not have enough money to afford legal representation. Instead of investigating, she bought a pack of cigarettes and went to sleep.

To the non-poor, these behaviors seem illogical, even self-sabotaging. But for those in the throes of instability, a new pair of shoes may be the only thing getting them through the week.

Again, it’s easy to see how poverty self-perpetuates. Individuals live with so little for so long that they no longer feel capable of getting out; they content themself with what they have now without realizing they have the resources to escape the cycle.

Real stories and empirical research demonstrate that poverty has become a cycle rather than a temporary condition. Lack of social connections, frustration with one’s current state of living, an individual’s inability to look past their present financial peril all contribute to one’s inability to escape poverty. But what can we do to protect families suffering from unstable poverty? As one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we have an obligation to ensure safe and affordable housing for every citizen, regardless of their race, class, or eviction status. Much like SNAP benefits, federal and state governments can provide low-income individuals with housing vouchers instead of mandating rent ceilings. Additionally, we need to strengthen our legal protections for low-income tenants. Far too often, renters succumb to avoidable evictions because there are not enough legal structures in place to protect a tenant’s rights. Eviction is a traumatic and destructive event; low-income individuals should have every protection possible to avoid unnecessary displacement. In the meantime, America must understand that poverty is a matter of circumstance rather than character.

We need to begin building the safety nets that impede this cycle. Nobody chooses to fall into poverty, and we shouldn’t punish those who do.

Collin McGovern ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at c.mcgovern@wustl. edu.

National

27

Paternalism and the Abolition of the Family Sophi Seley

"A

bolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists… Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party What do anarchists mean when we say that we want to abolish the family? Anarchists want to abolish the family because the family is the site of the reproduction and reification of the hierarchical form. Let me explain.

Hierarchical systems function through the creation and proliferation of smaller units of hierarchical relations within the central hierarchy that mimic its values and enforce its structure.

Essentially, people will only agree to allow others to dominate them if they rely on the hierarchical structure for their own power.

The concept of a “central hierarchy” is a bit reductive, as hierarchical relations overlap and interlock across identities, and one can argue that capitalism and class, structural racism and white supremacy, cisheteropatriarchy, or some other hierarchical social structure (like gerontocracy) constitutes the central hierarchy within our society, but for the purposes of this discussion I’m going to be considering the state to be the dominant social hierarchy. This, of course, doesn’t mean that I consider the destruction of those other forms of hierarchical social relations any less important or, but it’s an easy shorthand for the hierarchical form being reproduced by the family.

Even supposedly radical parents, as Emma Goldman writes, “though emancipated from the belief of ownership in the human soul, still cling tenaciously to the notion that they own the child, and that they have the right to exercise their authority over it” (Goldman pg. 12).

The State relies on this impulse. Through the

28 WU Political Review

complete and thorough domination of children by their parents, the family form ensures that parents teach their children to accept and defer to authority. In this way, the family produces perfect subjects of the State. This hierarchy is subsequently naturalized, through the construction of the child-subject as an inherently irrational and self-destructive form of inferior being, to be dominated and controlled for their own sake.

justification for our subordination by the patriarchy. Paternalism, in some misguided effort to “protect the children,” justifies the marginalization of queer people, the erasure of queer history, and the destruction of queer community and queer spaces. Why do trans people have to deal with byzantine guidelines and restrictions and wait periods to access trans medical care?

You guessed it, it’s paternalism!

The justification for the domination of children by their parents forms the basis of paternalism, the practice through which people in authority restrict the liberty of and justify their domination over those subordinate to them by arguing that such domination is in the best interest of those being dominated. It’s not hard to find examples of how the justification for this domination serves to reinforce the broader hierarchical structures within our society.

Paternalism also justifies the reactionary dismissal of liberatory ideas and politics. Have you ever been told that you’ll grow out of your radical politics? Or, when suggesting that things maybe ought to change, have you ever been told that your hopes for a better world are childish, immature, or even infantile? The condescending rejection of “youthful” radicalism by the supposedly mature and serious moderates makes up the instinctive reaction of reformists, opportunists, and other defenders of the status quo when challenged by ideas and possibilities beyond the realm of what their ideology allows them to believe.

Paternalism served as the ideological justification for imperialism, whether in the case of the supposedly enlightened rule of the colonial powers over their “uncivilized” subjects in the Global South, which the colonial rulers justified as bringing civilization to the childish and uncivilized savages. In fact, contemporary imperialists still use paternalism to justify “intervention” in Africa and the Middle East, arguing that such intervention is necessary to “keep the peace” and “spread democracy.” Paternalism justifies the destruction of social safety nets, from the stripping of unemployment benefits to “work requirements” to the ridiculous and dehumanizing restrictions on what one can buy with food stamps (the restriction on hot foods and prepared foods comes to mind), all because of this idea that people won’t contribute to society unless we force them to, so we need to coerce them into acting in their own self-interest. Paternalism was used to justify slavery, vagrancy laws, and still is used to justify the overpolicing of Black neighborhoods. The construction of women as some irrational, emotional, inferior form of being is a paternalistic

Since the family makes up one of the smallest and most foundational hierarchies within the central hierarchical system, the abolition of the family is deeply tied to the struggles for liberation from all of these other hierarchical structures. Only with the destruction of the family can we ever truly experience kinship. should have every protection possible to avoid unnecessary displacement. In the meantime, America must understand that poverty is a matter of circumstance rather than character.

We need to begin building the safety nets that impede this cycle. Nobody chooses to fall into poverty, and we shouldn’t punish those who do.

Sophi Seley '22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at samsonseley@wustl. edu.

Healthcare Must be a Human Right Ranen Miao, Staff Writer Artwork by Lea Despotis, Design Lead

W

hen Josh Wilkerson, a young man from Leesburg, Virginia turned 26, he was aged out of his stepfather’s health insurance plan. Left without health insurance coverage, Wilkerson was forced to pay $2,400 in co-pays every month for insulin, over twice as expensive as his monthly rent. Unable to afford his traditional insulin, he was forced to ration his insulin, and was eventually forced to switch to a much cheaper but less effective type of insulin; months later, he suffered multiple strokes due to high blood pressure, and died on June 15th.

Josh Wilkerson’s story is one that illuminates the vile nature of America’s for-profit healthcare sector, where amoral companies have built billion-dollar empires off the suffering and death of our nation’s most vulnerable. Wilkerson is not alone in struggling to afford insulin: 26% of people in the United States with Type I diabetes have reported rationing, a practice described as “extremely dangerous” by the Right Care Alliance. The barriers of cost have become so significant that there’s a name for when people struggle to afford their insulin: the “death or debt dilemma.”

The American people deserve a radical reimagination of public health. If the coronavirus pandemic has shown us anything, it is that healthcare is necessary for a healthy economy and society – and guaranteeing health coverage for every American by expanding the immensely popular Medicare program to cover our entire country can radically improve health outcomes for generations to come.

Currently, the private healthcare system means that only the wealthy get access to high-quality treatments. Research published from Harvard and the London School of Economics found that while the United States spends twice as much as other nations on healthcare, we have worse population health outcomes compared to other Western democracies. Amongst 11 OECD nations, the United States has the lowest life expectancies (which have continued to decline). Every year, an average of 70,000 Americans die from deaths of despair,

including drug overdoses, suicide, and alcohol poisoning. Levels of infant and maternal mortality are amongst the worst in the developed world; for non-Hispanic Black women, the maternal mortality rate is 3.5 times higher, a worse rate than war-torn Syria. American patients have some of the lowest levels of satisfaction with our healthcare system than any other country. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the American Journal of Public Health concluded that 45,000 deaths each year were directly tied to a lack of health coverage.

coverage. Furthermore, universal healthcare is by nature universal: it guarantees every person access to affordable healthcare. That means the 28 million Americans who lacked health insurance throughout 2020 would receive desperately needed coverage, saving thousands of lives each year. By simplifying administrative barriers, we can increase the amount of time physicians spend with patients. With more stable healthcare coverage, we can also offer reassurances to those who transition between jobs or choose to leave the labor market.

What keeps these costs so high? It’s because private companies indulge in wasteful bureaucratic and advertising spending. 31% of total health expenditures in the United States are spent on administrative costs, including claims submission, claims reconciliation, and payment processing, all inherent only in a privatized healthcare system. This is between 50% to 100% higher than other modern nations. On top of administrative waste, companies including Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer spend over $30 billion a year on marketing their drugs. The focus on profit corrupts the nature of healthcare, displacing the focus from healing the sick to mining every dollar possible from an increasingly economically deprived middle class.

Medicare-for-all would also offer substantial economic benefits: the Economic Policy Institute found that a universal healthcare system would boost wages and salaries by allowing employers to redirect investments in health care costs to workers wages and increase investments in long-term care that offset job losses in the health insurance and billing administration industries.

Medicare-for-all addresses these pressing issues.

The New York Times reports in 2017 that a single-payer health care system massively reduces administrative costs, streamlining healthcare processing. As a meta-analysis of 22 reports concludes, Medicare-for-All would cut costs and expand

When insulin was first invented in 1923 by Sir Frederick Banting, he said: “Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.” Banting would be deeply saddened to see that the miracle drug he brought into this world is now being commodified for profit, being sold for thousands of dollars a vial so diabetics can stay alive. Wilkerson’s story and the COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a wake-up call: we need healthcare for everyone, and we need it now.

Ranen Miao ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ranenmiao@wustl. edu.

National

29

The Criminalization of Hip-Hop Hussein Amuri

I

n the wake of the death of George Floyd, NPR Music sought to introduce a new podcast for its program that aimed to reveal the interconnection between hip-hop and the over-criminalization of Black people in this country. Titled Louder Than Riot, the podcast interviews and analyzes famous rappers like Bobby Shurmda, Nipsey Hussle, and Killer Mike, and through these figures’ interactions with law enforcement, the podcast examines American criminal justice and its racist impact on Black communities and other minority communities through the lens of music.

In his Journal of Black Studies article titled “Hip-Hop, Gangs, and the Criminalization of African American Culture: A Critical Appraisal of Yes Yes Y’all,” Ph.D. candidate at New York University Serouj Aprahamian tackles the ever-growing misconception that hip-hop was born out of gangs and criminal activities that populated much of the 1970’s Bronx parties (Aprahamian, 299). He also argues throughout his scholarly work, especially through the book Yes Yes Y’all: The Experience Music Project Oral History of Hip-Hop: The First Decade, that hiphop was not born out of gangs and criminalization. Rather, hip-hop is a product of America’s war on drugs, and the systematic racial separation laws that emerged through Redlining, both of which have resulted in the oppression of Black people and other minorities (Aprahamian, 303).

50 years since the introduction of the genre of music to the world, hip-hop is still constantly associated with crime, which has resulted in the ever-expanding crisis of mass incarceration.

Mass incarceration is a huge problem, and for one to truly understand the crisis it poses, one has to understand the historical and racist criminalization of hip-hop music, which has greatly contributed to mass incarceration; the criminalization of hip-hop is a widely used tool meant to silence and break down Black and brown communities.

30 WU Political Review

“Awareness should be paid to the one lesson upon which all of hip-hop.. seems to agree: that the United States system of crime and punishment is inequitable, unfairly administered, and purposely aimed to disempower people of color and the voiceless,” stated Andre Douglas Pond Cummings. In his Santa Clara Law Review article titled “Thug Life: Hip-Hop 's Curious Relationship with Criminal Justice,” Cummings expands on the issue by arguing what hip-hop is, and what it was born out of was African-American resistance to the ever-growing oppression of Black and brown communities under white-dominated governments both at the federal and local level.

Throughout the ’70s and ’80s, it was fairly common to see the FBI and CIA engaged in investigative operations that sought to criminalize black leaders who were profoundly influenced by hip-hop. Those agencies used their engagement with hip-hop as a tool to advocate for change in their communities (Cummings, 522).

In the early ’70s, with chapters in most major American cities, the Black Panther Party saw itself become the target of multiple FBI investigations involving domestic terrorist activities.

The investigations sought to promote “law and order” in the United States. (Abdelfatah, Arablouei, York, et al) In his Guardian article titled “After the Party: Music and the Black Panther Party,” journalist Dorian Lynskey shines a light on the existence of a 1960s-70s music group called “The Last Poets.” Known as the godfather of hip-hop, The Last Poets were recruited by the Black Panther Party due to the fact they “combined the militant spirit of avant-garde jazz musicians,” in their music something that greatly appealed to the party. (Lynskey) According to Lynskey, The Last Poets would go on to become the soundtrack for the Black Panther Party, releasing songs such as “When The Revolution Comes,” the same song that was used as a sonic template for Gil Scott-Heron’s definitive recording “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” But,

unfortunately, like many Black Panther Party leaders, most of The Last Poets met their fate at the hand of the FBI due to their association with the “radical” and “gangsta” group: terms used nowadays to describe hip-hop.

This history of racial oppression by government agencies explains why despite the “socially conscious” nature of hip-hop, many hip-hop artists often feel the need to glorify the “gangsta” aspect of it, for the sake of resisting oppression. It is a form of protest, because to some members of the Black and brown community, it makes no difference whether they glorify violence and gangsta nature in their lyrics, because their music will always be associated with criminality.

The Nixon administration is one of the most controversial White House administrations in U.S. History. But out of all the things that history remembers the Nixon administration for, both the good and the bad, its war on drugs was by far its most infamous highlight. It is best explained by Nixon’s own top aide, John Daniel Ehrlichman, who stated: “You want to know what this was all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. Do you understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news."

Ehrlichman’s explanation of the war on drugs is one embedded in the abuse of racism in political campaigns and it was wielded to win seats in the American political climate of the 1970’s. But the “war on drugs” continued well into the ’80s with President Reagan, as well as the ’90s with President Clinton. By associating the blacks with

heroin, the Nixon administration opened the door for the association of hip-hop with drugs by various political candidates and officials, as a way to portray the “predatory” nature of Black men that, in the administration’s view, had to be stopped. The war on drugs and the war on hiphop are the same wars, just with two different names. Both seek to push the same narrative that characterizes Black men as predators who must be stopped at all cost. Historically, that process is done through the criminalization of drugs and hip-hop that has greatly contributed to the mass incarceration crisis that we see in America.

In her Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law article titled “Chopped & Screwed: Hip Hop from Cultural Expression to a Means of Criminal Enforcement,” Taifha Natalee Alexander explains that the “war on drugs” was a racialized war that produced racist “…policies and implicit racial biases and inequities in socioeconomic distribution amongst racial groups that have caused legislatures, police officers, and other decisionmakers within the criminal justice system to disproportionately target Black people, specifically Black men, for incarceration.” (Alexander, 216) By criminalizing hip-hop, the US criminal justice system took away a tool that black and brown communities use to call out the injustice inflicted on them. But in an attempt to suppress their voice, that tool has been constantly associated with criminalization, demonization, and the discretization of their livelihoods in the form of the lyrics that they sing.

As a means to fight back, rappers have done a great job in calling out how Black and brown communities continue to be overly policed and incarcerated due to their music. Rappers such as 2Pac, rap group NWA, and Ice T are iconic for this. For example, in their 1988 album titled Straight Outta Compton, NWA wrote a song famously titled “Fuck Tha Police.” In that song, NWA sang:

Awareness should be paid to the one lesson upon which all of hip-hop.. seems to agree: that the United States system of crime and punishment is inequitable, unfairly administered, and purposely aimed to disempower people of color and the voiceless.

“You have the emergence in human society of this thing that's called the State What is the State? The State is this organized bureaucracy It is the po-lice department. It is the Army, the Navy It is the prison system, the courts, and what have you This is the State -- it is a repressive organization” Like many of the rappers of their generation, members of NWA also agree, in the words of Professor Cummings, that the United States system of crime and punishment is inequitable, unfairly administered, and purposely aimed to disempower people of color along with the voiceless, and it must be called out for that. But this is where the trouble begins.

The criminalization of hip-hop continues well into its actual lyrics. Such disparity of continual oppression can be seen in the “Rap on Trial” movement that has long fought to keep the criminal justice system from justifying the

imprisonment of rappers using their lyrics.

Earlier this year, megastar artist Jay-Z made the news as he teamed up with Philadelphia-based artist Meek, in an attempt to block rap music from being used in court to sue rappers who are in many ways using their voice to call out police brutality and mass incarceration. This came in the wake of a New York state legislature bill titled “Rap Music on trial” which aims to push Jay-Z and Meek Mill’s initiative, which made headlines.

When Michael Brown died in 2014, the media tried everything to spin a story of how he was no angel losing his humanity at the hands of police brutality. Newspapers and television accomplished this by bringing up Brown’s interest in rap music, stating that Brown was known to be a rap enthusiast who “produced lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar.” (Dennis, 9).

Hip-hop is quite a cotroversial art form, for the wrong reasons. While people will constantly try to justify its demonization, this process does not help anyone. While there’s a case to be made about hip-hop’s sexist, violent, and often lawless nature, have people ever wondered why these images are so prevalent? Have people ever stopped and asked why despite the constant blaming, does hip-hop continues to retain its popularity? Hip-hop is not a perfect art form, but its impact on Black and brown rappers who have found a voice in calling out the injustices that have long invaded their communities in the form of mass incarceration cannot be denied.

From the war on drugs to the death of Michael Brown, rappers have been the real journalists reporting what’s going on in their communities, rather than the morphed narratives that serve the interests of media companies.

Sophi Seley '22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at samsonseley@wustl. edu.

National

31

A Ripple from the Past: WU Political Journalism Jaden Lanza, Editor-in-Chief

L

ast November, Executive Director Alaina Baumohl and I had a conversation with Wash U alum Dan Mirvish, a filmmaker who hosted a

screening of his new film 18 ½ at the Tivoli Theatre, a thriller-comedy about Richard Nixon’s “missing tape” in the Watergate scandal.

We watched the film and really liked it, but this article isn’t going to be about 18 ½, which was covered well in a Student Life profile by Jordan Coley. Instead, we focus on Dan’s experience establishing a political journal in 1986 that I think provides an intriguing contextual history for WUPR’s appearance decades later.

Publications – Student Groups WUA00248, item: Washington Ripple, April 23, 1987, Julian Edison Department of Special Collections, Washington University Libraries

We met Dan in the Cheshire Inn’s ornate lobby, a quaint cozy hotel a few minutes from Wash U’s cam-

sometimes contribute about domestic and interna-

pus. As two students who have a passion for polit-

tional issues and local things. [We] spent our first

ical writing, we were interested in the fact that Dan

couple of years doing a lot of investigative reporting.”

co-founded a political journal here in 1986, which was called The Washington Ripple.

was a Danforth family project.”

The story they produced really is impressive, particularly for undergraduate students. As you can see in

At the university archives in Olin Library, I found some

the pie chart above, in 1986 Wash U’s holdings in a

old copies of the Ripple. Most notably, an investiga-

single company exceeded that of all of their other

Nearly 20 years before WUPR ever existed, the

tive story into the Wash U endowment’s investments

equity investments! The story of how this came to be

Washington Ripple was founded by David Lundy,

under Chancellor Danforth, co-written by Mirvish,

is certainly does seem a little suspect, to say the least.

Jeffrey Gerson, and Daniel Mirvish. Dan humbly char-

Lundy, and Gerson. They published with the headline

acterized his role as being “more of a third wheel”, but

“A Question of Conflicts at WU” on April 23, 1987

For all those that are interested, copies of every issue

he nonetheless found himself at the forefront of the

(pictured above). The trio were critical of Danforth’s

of the Washington Ripple and also this magazine

paper’s history. Dan and his colleagues all graduated

investments, which did not seem to be managed in

have been preserved by Washington University archi-

three years later, but the Washington Ripple contin-

a conventional manner. A full third of the Wash U

vists. You can schedule an appointment and see for

ued to be published into the 1990s before it was dis-

endowment was invested in a single stock, the food

yourself.

continued. WUPR, of course, was founded in 2004.

conglomerate Ralston Purina.

In his casual friendly style, Dan told us about how the

Long before the familiar critiques made by student

old pieces of student history that we are successors

paper began to take shape. His response has been

activists regarding the university’s investments in

to. Looking at old copies of the Washington Ripple

lightly edited for clarity:

fossil fuel companies that are vocalized on campus

– and also the very first edition of WUPR ever pub-

today, Dan and his friends were picking apart the

lished – gave me a sense of nostalgia for something

“[The] Washington Ripple started, kind of grew out of

Wash U endowment fund for other reasons. Dan did

that I wasn’t even a part of. Although WUPR today

the College Democrats. And my friend Dave Landy,

not allege that anything illegal was going on, but he

is very different from the Ripple (and even from itself

he was the head of the College Democrats, but he

was rightfully skeptical pertaining to the administra-

when it began), I hope that this magazine can con-

thought we should start our own political journal not

tion’s good sense in their investments:

tinue to stimulate political discussions on campus

Perhaps I’m the only one, but I enjoy looking at these

specifically tied to the College Democrats, but any-

going forward, as it has for the past 18 years. Though

way, [sic] – this guy, Jeffrey Gerson, I think was his

“I'm not an Econ major or anything like that, [but]

our content has evolved over time, I’m proud to lead

name, we [all] started this thing. For the first year, it

we'll tell you, you should not put a third of a billion dol-

a magazine that gives any Wash U student writer a

kinda looked like Student Life. It was kind of a news-

lar endowment in one company, like what happens if

voice if they want it.

paper format, but we called it a journal, and then by

their stock tanks... I don't know that there's anything

the next year we made it look more like a journal. I

specifically nefarious, but it just kinda showed the

Jaden Lanza ‘23 studies in the College of Arts &

had articles from students, a couple of faculty would

whole culture of how the university is structured. It

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

32 WU Political Review

The Limits of National Conservatism Will Gunter

"P

eople can make money. They provide goods and services people want, need, and desire?

That’s America. It’s called freedom,” said Sean Hannity, beginning his nightly newscast in July 2020. His introduction captures the ethos of Republican politics since the days of Goldwater. Freedom and capitalism go hand-in hand and are the basis of what makes America great. No argument could be less controversial on Fox News.

Yet Hannity’s remark was met with derision rather than plaudits, and his ensuing apology indicated a paradigm shift in conservative politics. His unscripted comment pushed back against a segment on the preceding show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, in which the network’s primetime anchor lamented Jeff Bezos’ exorbitant profits amid a sputtering pandemic economy.

Carlson’s opening chyron, “Fat Cat Bezos Rakes in Cash During Pandemic,” is more reminiscent of Eugene Debs than Ronald Reagan. But this brand of economic populism is central to the new philosophy of the Republican party.

Supplanting the small-government conservatism of the Reagan coalition, Carlson represents an ascendant wing of the Republican party that claims to take on business elites rather than represent them.

This new form of right-wing politics–best known as National Conservatism–views freedom as subordinate to its goal of a traditionalist American culture, and it won’t shy away from state intervention to achieve its goals. The movement has caught steam since Donald Trump took office in 2017, and the official National Conservatism Conference–inaugurated two years later– outlines their vision for America.

In its most coherent formulation, National Conservatism is best articulated by Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony. In his speech at the 2019 conference, he identified three main

pillars of “true” conservatism: nationalism, economic growth, and religion. For Hazony, nationalism is an unapologetic commitment to put one’s own citizens above others. A robust economy is industrial and autarkic. Crucially, Hazony believes that America is inherently Christian nation, and believes the bible should be taught in schools to foster a more virtuous society. Unlike the ideology of the Republican establishment, which prioritizes limited government above all else, this political philosophy doesn't lay out a consistent view of the state’s role in society. Instead, it views the state as one tool, among many, that can be used to promote prosperity congruent with traditional Christian values.

At the same conference, however, a very different version of National Conservatism is espoused by prominent Republican politicians. When Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Josh Howley took the podium at the conference’s 2021 iteration, the audience's attention was drawn away from visions of a traditionalist American society, and toward a single, amorphous boogeyman: the left. In their keynote addresses, this triumvirate of the populist right detailed how the elite forces of academia, journalism, big business and the Democratic party have merged into a woke cabal that threatens the existence of America as we know it. This view resorts to reductionist, Trumpeseque rhetoric that overlooks the various– and often diametrically opposed–interests of these disparate groups. However, it was massively successful at riling up the likeminded crowd.

Therein lies the appeal of National Conservatism as articulated by its most visible proponents. It does not provide a coherent governing agenda, but a playbook of maximalist rhetoric that reliably invigorates the Republican party’s Trumpian base. Broadening the jurisdiction of the state, National Conservatism creates

new enemies for the Republican party.

It focuses on the idyllic ends of a virtuous Christian society and isn’t concerned with a consistent strategy for achieving it. Thus, proponents of this ideology can accuse all opponents of conservatism– from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Mark Zuckerberg–of being complicit in a scheme to corrupt the moral foundations of the country.

While National Conservatives bemoan the economic decline brought on by business-friendly politics, they are conspicuously scant on solutions. In his keynote, Marco Rubio called for “a capitalism that creates jobs–American jobs–that allow Americans to get married, own a home, raise a family in a safe neighborhood… and leave their children better off than themselves.” Yet, his depiction of an ideal American economy was not buttressed with policy proposals to achieve it.

Beyond calls to break up big tech, National Conservative politicians eschew economic policy for state-backed social conservatism. Economic populism is central to their rhetoric but is absent from the legislative agenda. Meanwhile, their calls for abortion restrictions, anti-trans bathroom bills and race-blind revisionism to history curricula echo the demands of the establishment Republicans they constantly disparage.

The figureheads of the National Conservative movement spend so much time railing against the dangerous leftist elite that they neglect to detail how they would change the modern politics that they profess to despise. For its proponents in power–from Carlson to Cruz–National Conservatism is little more than a rhetorical veneer on the same material politics as the Hannity-Reagan wing of their party.

Will Gunter ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at gunter.w@wustl.edu.

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

WUPR invites you to write or illustrate in our next issue.

To get involved visit wupr.org/contribute

How South Korea's Online Right is Reshaping Politics Gabriel Squitieri

"J

azz it up! A new unit of the Korean Christian women’s movement is coming.” “On Massive Cultural Marxist.” “Youth Jinpyeongyeon launches — the next generation’s worldview war and the twilight of cultural Marxism.” These were the posts I saw on truthforum.kr, a habitat for South Korea’s farright misogynists that have found a home online.

The opinions espoused in forums such as this one, while extreme, are not relegated to the fringes of South Korean political discourse. Like its counterparts in countries such as the United States, the country’s online right has aggressively expanded its presence, courting young and old alike, capitalizing on social grievances and feelings of anger, isolation, and hopelessness. While the causes from which such sentiments have emerged are different, they share one common element: President Moon Jae-in.

Ushered into office in 2017 in the wake of a corruption scandal that upended the country’s politics, Moon was viewed with optimism by South Korea’s young voters. In his first month in office, he recorded a 90 percent approval rating among those in their 20s after a landslide victory in that year’s presidential election. For this demographic cohort, the center-left Moon represented a break from the conservatism and corruption of the Park presidency.

Since then, however, the excitement and sense of empowerment many young people, particularly women, have felt over the past five years has been increasingly challenged by a right-wing wave, both on the internet and at the ballot box.

Much of their excitement surrounding Moon was related not only to his pledges to put an end to the economic malaise that was hindering so many, but toward his declaration to “become a feminist president”. In the aftermath of the brutal murder of a woman in a Seoul restroom, the country’s progressives were eager to usher in an era of equality after centuries of patriarchy and a decade of right-wing governance.

The years since have demonstrated that any deviation from the prevailing conservative sentiment in the country very well may be the exception to the rule. Moon’s present support among Korean youth is a fraction of its 2017 levels, particularly among men, only 17 percent of whom approve of the president’s performance.

The initial catalyst for this dramatic decrease was the country’s slow economic growth and high unemployment among those under 30.

However, the economic strife these men are facing does not adequately explain their disgust with the president they once supported by an overwhelming majority. Rather, it masquerades the true motivation that many of them share.

Solidarity, insisted that “[anti-feminists] don’t hate women, and [they] don’t oppose elevating their rights. But feminists are a social evil”.

Slow economic growth, coupled with income inequality and scarce opportunities for upward mobility, have proven to be fertile ground for the stoking of blame and resentment. As South Korea’s young men have seen their prospects for upward mobility dwindle, one movement in particular has become the primary scapegoat: feminism.

The latter statement in particular influences their worldview and explains the precipitous gains the country’s main right-wing party, the People Power Party, has made among this section of the Korean population. Those supporting the new party often view themselves as the victims of reverse discrimination. They find a link between vanishing upward mobility and the increasing number of women in the workforce and universities. Few political conversions have been as successful as the one currently taking place in South Korea. As apparent as the consequences of the right’s online campaign are, its full effects have not yet manifested.

Various right-wing groups and personalities, both online and off, have taken advantage of this.

San E, an anti-feminist rapper, has found a small but devoted following among men in their 20s.

His song “Feminist” contains provocative lyrics such as “Korea has a gender pay gap of blah blah blah / fucking fake fact” and “Oh girls don’t need a prince / Then pay for half the house when we marry / “I’m no fucking prince”. Such vitriol is not limited to the music San E produces for his loyal fans. The internet, once seen as an opportunity for women to empower themselves by making their voices heard, is now being used to intimidate and silence them, with over 80 percent of South Korean women being subjected to misogyny online.

What are the effects of such claims? Young South Korean men have become the most conservative generation in their country. Journalist Cheon Gwan-yul and data scientist Jeong Hanwool found that 58.6 percent of men in their 20s are strongly opposed to feminism, 95.7 percent disagreed that “gender discrimination is the reason why Korean women earn less than men”, while 100 percent agreed with the statement, “today, discrimination against men is more severe than discrimination against women”.

Gabriel Squitieri ‘23 studies in the College of Arts Sciences. He can be reached at gabriel.s@wustl.edu.

Despite the increasing prevalence of such views and the consequences they hold for women, anti-feminists insist their aim is not to achieve male supremacy. Bae In-kyu, the head of Man on

International

35

Imagining Our Destruction Julian McCall Artwork by Lea Despotis

T

oday, it’s easy to view nuclear war as a lesson of ancient 20th century history or a backdrop for apocalyptic novels.

The nearly 80 years of nuclear peace since the attacks on Japan can pacify us into believing nuclear war is impossible. However, the lack of past nuclear war is not evidence that this will continue in the future. As we enter a unique geopolitical landscape, it would be foolish to not seriously consider the circumstances that could lead to untold destruction.

Before we begin, it’s important to have a grasp of basic nuclear terminology and concepts. There are thought to be two main types of nuclear war, limited and full-scale. Limited nuclear war is characterized by “the minimal use of nuclear weapons by one or more parties to attack mainly military facilities” such as command structures and military forces. Full-scale nuclear war, on the other hand, seeks to completely destroy the target country, and makes no discrimination between military and civilian targets.

Additionally, all nuclear weapons are not created equal. High-yield nuclear weapons, or “hydrogen bombs”, typically defined as having at least a 100-kiloton yield and “use atomic bombs to generate enough heat to cause nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms.” Nuclear fusion is the same process that generates the immense heat of the Sun and refers to the destruction of atoms—the very building blocks of our universe.

In contrast, low-yield nuclear weapons, or “atom bombs,” typically have a yield of around 15 kilotons, comparable to the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These bombs use simple fission and are more likely to be used by emerging nuclear states like India and Pakistan.

Below is a snapshot of global nuclear capabilities as sourced from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Report published in 2021.

North Korea have explicitly stated that they are comfortable initiating nuclear conflict with varying caveats. China, and to a lesser extent Russia, have identified nuclear warheads as weapons of last resort.

We can quickly identify a couple of categories of nuclear states. The United States and Russia alone hold the overwhelming majority of nuclear weapons and have hundreds of ways to launch them. There’s a variety of first-use policies — the United States, France, United Kingdom, and

In 2019, renowned realist international relations scholar John Mearsheimer gave a talk titled “The Great Powers and the Quest for Nuclear Advantage,” within it, he articulated four ways in which states seek nuclear advantage over their adversaries.

According to Mearsheimer, the first scenario is the most optimal situation for any nuclear power: a “nuclear monopoly”, wherein they are the only country with nuclear weapons. This allows for great flexibility in military strategy, as possessing nuclear weapons with no fear of retaliation is a massive advantage. However, the brief moment of nuclear monopoly in the early post-WWII days is long gone.

States must then settle for the second-best strategy – a “splendid first strike” capability.

This refers to the ability for a country to launch debilitating first-strikes against their nuclear adversaries that effectively wipe out enemy nuclear arsenals. States would do this to preemptively eliminate the possibility of being nuked. This strategy is probable in a conflict between a great nuclear power and a minor one such as North Korea a limited number of nuclear warheads.

The bronze medal of nuclear strategy goes to “damage limitation,” which like a splendid first strike, attempts to wipe out most enemy nuclear capabilities. Damage limitation, though, is unable to completely eliminate another nation’s arsenal. The aggressor state would effectively subject itself to receiving a retaliatory strike, though a state that engages in this strategy has likely determined that they have a good chance of surviving the retribution. This is a less than ideal course of action as it all but guarantees receiving nuclear attacks on military and/or civilian targets, but a country could engage in this strategy if they suspect an imminent enemy attack or to hedge against that risk.

Lastly, a state could engage in what Mearsheimer calls “manipulation of risk,” where a country with a limited number of nuclear weapons and unable to engage in any of the earlier strategies could launch a couple of warheads towards remote enemy locations or uninhabited areas to “throw both sides on the slippery slope towards oblivion” and prompt a change in the behavior of their adversary.

This could be done as an act of desperation if a state is facing massive attacks on its homeland or if its conventional strength is significantly weaker than its opponents.

Thankfully, these nuclear strategies remain theoretical due to the past 77 years of nuclear peace. However, as we enter a multipolar world, there are important differences in the geopolitical landscape that could make nuclear war more likely in the future than it was during the Cold War, or America’s unipolar moment.

During the Cold War, the two dominant nuclear powers—the United States and the Soviet Union—stood face to face and armed to the teeth on the Eurasian plateau. Though a few nuclear scares resulted from mutual unease and suspicion, bo th sides knew that any direct conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R would

almost inevitably lead to nuclear Armageddon, thus rendering war between the great powers nearly impossible.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, America stood in the unique historical position of being the sole global superpower, and for an entire generation, it stood unopposed militarily in every global arena. Because of America’s vast power, no country unhappy with the Americanled order dared challenge American supremacy, and thus the likelihood of nuclear war plummeted. However, today that calculus is beginning to change.

The primary difference today is that rather than the unipolar world of the past 30 years, or the bipolar world of the 45 years beforehand, we are entering a multipolar world. There are now at least three nuclear-armed great powers – the United States, Russia, and China. Both Russia and China have demonstrated more ambitious attempts to disrupt or overturn the current global system, which alongside the geographic differences of conflict with China and the increasing parity between military powers make nuclear war potentially more likely.

A war between the United States and China within the next decade is increasingly likely.

There are several potential flashpoints, the largest being a Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan. Whatever the spark that ignites the conflict, it is likely that warfare would be heavily centered around control of the East and South China Seas, as well as island chains in the region. Therefore, this fight will be overwhelmingly naval based. Maritime war in a relatively constrained space, especially at certain chokepoints, could make use of nuclear weapons less absurd. In tightly packed coastal regions, a high or low-yield nuclear weapon could wipe out significant portions of naval fleets with minimal civilian casualties. This likelihood could be increased if the United States engaged in missile attacks or air campaigns against the Chinese mainland along the seaboard, where the vast majority of the population and industries are located.

Here we enter the land of pure conjecture, but there would be a logic for nuclear attack for both sides. The United States almost certainly has a first-strike capability, given that they have at least 15 times the number of warheads that China has. If they feared a Chinese nuclear

attack or wished to destroy China’s political will – or destroy China period – they almost certainly could do so. The Chinese military themselves could theoretically launch limited nuclear attacks on enemy naval forces, though this would drastically increase the chances of their being nuked. They could also engage in preemptive “manipulation of risk” strategies to improve their chances of ending the conflict.

There is no clear understanding of how any of these situations would play out. If, months or years into a conflict between the United States and China, the world received news that a Chinese nuclear torpedo wiped out several naval ships and caused the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. naval sailors coupled with unknown consequences of nuclear radiation in oceans that millions depend on for fishing, what would the reaction be?

Would we immediately seek the quickest end to the war? Would people call for the annihilation of China in revenge? What if roles were reversed, or another nuclear scenario played

out? We would quickly leave the cold calculus of military conflict and wrestle with existential questions of revenge, justice, peace, and the existence of humanity on this planet, and predicting any answers to those questions is simply impossible.

Prospects of nuclear war between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces including France and the United Kingdom against Russia are even more dismal, as it would likely escalate more quickly into fullscale nuclear war given the tight geography of Eurasia. However, the line between “limited” attacks on military forces and “full-scale” attacks on civilians is quickly blurred given the population density of Europe. Other conflicts concerning India and Pakistan, or North Korea would be no less deadly.

I don’t mean to scare readers into thinking that nuclear war is imminent or inevitable. The fact remains that nuclear war is still highly improbable – but not impossible. I hope this serves

as a wake-up call to the potential realities of great conflict between nuclear-armed states in the 21st century. Before we stumble into armed conflicts between nuclear powers, we must recognize that we have the power of God in our hands, and with that the ability to preserve or destroy the possibility of life for future generations.

Julian McCall ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at j.c.mccall@wustl.edu.

Artwork by Megan Orlanski, Editor-in-Chief