4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 OPINION Ttbe £liigt O tdQ JASON Z. PESICK Editor in Chief SUHAEL MOMIN SAM SINGER Editorial Page Editors ALISON Go Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE ''Only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world - and that person was Saddam Hussein." - President Bush, in defense of his administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, as reported yesterday by The Associated Press. COLIN ILALY Ii.-U.\1'-,, CAN DA: . 9 e LOOVEI LOSTIN ~i ATOY f)?-"t4- . The 'right' approach SAM SINGER SAM'S CLIJI When Penn- sylvania state trea- surer Bob Casey (D) was beckoned by his party to challenge Sen. Rick Santorum (R) in next year's midterm elections, he dutifully { accepted, with one stipulation: There could be no primary race. If the party wanted Casey's name on the ballot, it would vacate the primary election, and he would enter the midterm as the presumptive nominee. These were rather bold terms for a state trea- surer to demand of his party leadership, especially while being recruited for one of the country's most coveted Senate seats. But this was no ordinary state treasurer: son of the late two-term governor and Pennsylvania legend Robert Casey Sr., Bobby Jr. carries a star-studded pedigree. A pro-life, labor- friendly moderate in his father's tradition, Casey's politics play exceptionally well with the state's heavily unionized middle class. His 2004 bid for treasurer - in which he received the largest popu- lar mandate state voters have ever given a public officeholder - caught the attention of national leadership, most notably Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York), chairman of the Democratic Sena- torial Campaign Committee. According to The New Yorker, Pennsylvania was Schumer's "Num- ber one take-back seat," and the chairman wasn't going to rest until Casey, the state's newfound political darling, was on board. It should come as no surprise that Schumer, all too aware of the dangers of wearing a pro-life label in a Democratic primary, was quick to elbow out Casey's competitors. With the help of Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell (D), Schumer sidelined Bar- bara Hafer, the pro-choice movement's trophy pick and a feature candidate of Emily's List, a Wash- ington-based advocacy group that sponsors pro- choice female politicians. Despite polling poorly against Santorum, Hafer had been the Democrats' early favorite in the primary. It was a nasty bullet to bite, immediately exposing Schumer - a steadfast champion of reproductive freedom - to attacks from the pro-choice lobby. But it proved worth- while, as head-to-head polling now shows Casey with a commanding lead, somewhere in the neigh- borhood of 14 and 20 points. There are lessons to be learned here. Most importantly, it's become clear that the Democratic Party's primary system has been hijacked by spe- cial interests and when left to its own devices, will consistently favor the candidates who can best jockey for financial sponsors. As a result, a disproportionate number of primary winners hail from the political fringe. When a moderate does manage to walk out of a Democratic primary, he's usually limping. The politics of abortion exemplify this. Advo- cacy groups like the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood wield enormous power during primary season, withholding support from all but the most uncompromising pro-choice advocates and steering the abortion debate to the left. Candidates are sent into general elections with insensitively narrow positions on abortion, weakening their appeal and lending credibility to conservative charges that the Democratic Party's position on abortion is sounding more pro-abor- tion than pro-choice. The problem is not that the primary system pro- motes divisive candidates; it's that it scares away born frontrunners like Bob Casey, who if not for an aggressive intervention by national party lead- ers, would still be crunching numbers in Harris- burg. Casey doesn't embody the pulse of the party, but he's a practical thinker and a political blessing compared to Santorum - a soldier of the religious right who, when push comes to shove, remains in lockstep with the Bush administration. For a party six years removed from the White House and trailing nine seats in the Senate, it's numbers that count. Majorities - not moral fiber - build strong parties, and so long as Democrats remain in the political margins, they'll have to open their tent to new voices. That's what Schumer did in Pennsylvania, and it's paying dividends. Our primary system hasn't always been like this. Before the television age, the nomina- tion process was insulated; most appointments occured behind closed doors where party leaders handpicked candidates. Calls for transparency during the progressive era brought the selec- tion process out in the open, and components of democracy were introduced. What's left now is a thoughtless and perverted system - a spending contest in which special interests exploit low voter participation to push through financially dependent politicians. Until Democrats can rely on a primary system that produces marketable candidates, it will be up to party leaders to pick the winners. If that means all of 2006's frontrunners are selected in smoked filled rooms, so be it. *I Singer can be reached at singers@umich.edu. VIEWPOINT End Ann Arbor apartheid BY JARED GOLDBERG The Ann Arbor City Council elections were last Tuesday. Did you vote? Most students did not. (I did not, as I was forced to reregister with my home address when I turned 21 last January.) Tom Bourque, Republican candidate for Ward 2, indicated that although he supports the creation of a student-city committee to work with the City Council, he is skeptical of its effectiveness due to the "apathy" of student voters. Very few, if any, students vote in these elections. If there is student apathy, the blame for its existence lies solely with the structure of city government here in Ann Arbor and its apartheid attitude and policies toward the student population. Of the roughly 110,000 people who live in Ann Arbor, students make up around 30 to 40 percent. However, it has been more than 30 years since a single student has been elected to City Council. Take a glance at the ward map to see why. Ann Arbor is divided up like a pie; those living in the center are split up the most. It is no coincidence that the University, the densest part of Ann Arbor, is at the center. This is where most of the students live, and students are forced to be minorities in every ward. Much like the Bantustans of apart- heid South Africa, Ann Arbor's wards divide up students so their voices remain divided and frag- mented. It is no coincidence that the some of the hottest topics on the City Council agenda when school is in session are the Emerald Ash Borer Millage and the Greenbelt. City Council avoids student issues while students are here in order to avoid possible protest. When summer comes, City Council has free reign. Remember the porch couch ban and street parking ban? This is how apathy is born. Many City Council candidates spoke enthusias- tically about the student-city committee formed to foster more student involvement in Ann Arbor city government. In the end, it will blame student apa- thy on the students. Should we students vote more? Certainly. We have no problem going to the polls. Last year, more people ages 18 to 24 voted in the 2004 election than any other time since the federal government lowered the voting age in 1972. What was different? Students believed they had a stake in who was elected. Because young people will have to pay for this administration's policies in the future, we had more than enough reason to vote the way we did. (The vast majority in the 18 to 24 bloc did not vote for President Bush.) City Council cannot complain about apathy when it encourages it. It cannot be surprised at the anger of students when policies are enact- ed that harm our rights and our sensibilities. Ann Arbor's apartheid is more evident if one comprehends how much of the city's economy depends on students. The majority of money circulating here is student money. Our rent pays off landlords' mortgages and property taxes, our money pays for the food and other goods in the local shops and our student labor drives many businesses. So how can Ann Arbor's apartheid end? Cre- ate a new ward, this one covering the University campus and outlying student housing ghettoes. Students won't be apathetic when any one of them living in this "new" ward can have a seat on City Council. Or how about organizing a one-day stu- dent boycott of all Ann Arbor businesses? Imag- ine how much money will be lost. The best way to hurt someone is through their wallet. In 1985, the University divested from South Africa because of the oppressive policy of apart- heid that artificially separated people based on race. Ann Arbor's apartheid separates the students from the rest of city. The students have the power to change things, and it will be students that will knock this city and its council off their high horse. Goldberg is an LSA junior and member of the Daily's editorial board. 0i LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Student candidates needed for '06 Council elections. To THE DAILY: Worst. Story. Ever. Wednesday's story on the City Council elections (Dems sweep City Council, 11/09/2005) might as well have been written by The Ann Arbor News. It was so anti-student and slanted in nature. The report- er claimed low student turnout, but every source he quoted cited roughly comparable student turnout to past years. Student turnout was likely consistent with previous off-year elections. The blame lies with the larger pop- ulation of Ann Arbor, the "permanent" popu- lation of the city, that was disengaged from the political process. What does this mean for students? It represents a significant opportunity for us. The city of Ann Arbor is tending toward a necessary campus-city coalitions to over- turn the status-quo Council. Dale Winling Architecture & Urban Planning The letter writer is founder of the New West Side Association. Fighting for justice means taking on Coca-Cola To THE DAILY: I took offense to Sean Germaine's unabashed acceptance (Despite protests, the real problem goes beyond Coke, 11/10/2005) of the manipula- tive actions of multinational corporations. Their unethical practices - for the sake of maximizing profit - are executed in countries where govern- ments are unable to regulate them. Germaine and the Coca-Cola Company assume that govern- tries where it does business, Pepsi will be forced to do the same in order to stay competitive. If we consider history, as Germaine clearly has not, we find that similar campaigns carried out by United Students Against Sweatshops against Nike have been successful and were executed through simi- lar means. Due to the existing international cam- paign against Coke's practices, those concerned with justice at the University chose to target Coca- Cola because this campaign is already organized and must be mobilized. To address Germaine's views on the reality of globalization and free trade, he must open another, much fatter history book. Free trade, as he stated, does not have immediate positive effects. I agree. However, its long-term effects are also negative. Opposing free trade is in no way anti-American; if our very own colonies here in America did not do so, we ourselves would not exist. Globalization is indeed an inevitable reality rL.+ -_ I --+ . . _..r - XYA 11;a Editorial Board Members: Amy Anspach, Reggie Brown, Gabrielle D'Angelo, John Davis, Whitney Dibo, Milly Dick, Sara Eber, Jesse Forester, Mara Gay, Jared Goldberg, Ashwin Jagannathan, Theresa Kennelly, Mark Kuehn, Will Kerridge, Kirsty McNamara, Rajiv Prab- hakar, Matt Rose, David Russell, Katherine Seid, Brian Slade, John Stiglich, Imran Syed, Ben I