Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, September 14, 2015

Who are the Iran nuclear 

deal haters?

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, Aarica 

Marsh, Adam Morton, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Anna Polumbo-
Levy, Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Stephanie 

Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

A 

former reality TV star is the 
biggest name in news for the 
next Republican presiden-

tial 
nomination. 

On the other side, 
a socialist and a 
familiar face lead 
the way for the 
Democrats. Hill-
ary Clinton has 
been 
mired 
in 

controversy 
for 

the entire sum-
mer. Meanwhile, 
Bernie Sanders, a 
doggedly radical 
leftist, is gaining surprising trac-
tion in the age of big-money poli-
tics.

Sanders has raised over $15 mil-

lion dollars, and according to the 
New York Times, the average dona-
tion to Sanders’ campaign is a 
 

meager $31.30.

Sanders isn’t alone. Trump is also 

making waves on the right by prom-
ising to run his campaign without 
accepting any fundraising donations 
from lobbyists.

Since the 2010 Citizens United 

decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, 
corporations and super PACs have 
been pouring money into elections 
in ever-greater amounts. Unlim-
ited donations to campaigns by 
individuals and corporations alike 
is the law of the land. Quickly, the 
image of corporate lobbyists, sitting 
fingers-crossed in each politician’s 
office while dressed like old-fash-
ioned mobsters ready to make “an 
offer you can’t refuse,” entered the 
 

American consciousness. 

President Barack Obama made 

headlines with his grassroots fund-
raising success in 2008, but he wasn’t 
a candidate dedicated to shun-
ning the entire established order 
of things like Sanders and Trump 
 

have become. 

In a post-Citizens United world, 

conventional wisdom says those who 
don’t sell out to corporate interests 
don’t stand a chance at winning an 
elected office. Politicians themselves 
have played into their natural role, 
following the money and, in the 
worst cases, allowing their careers 
to be held aloft by the money of 
 

the rich.

Without the support of big money, 

it’s awfully hard to win an election.

Except for the fact that now sum-

mer is over, and we’re still waiting 
for the other shoe to drop on the 
would-be punchline that was sup-
posed to be Trump’s campaign. 
Like Sanders, he is bucking the 
support of super PACs. Trump’s 

own private wealth makes funding 
a campaign much easier. Nonethe-
less, Trump is a renegade.

While Sanders relies on his mid-

dle-class supporters and a budget-
ed campaign to stay afloat, Trump 
is independently wealthy enough 
to finance his campaign without 
external support. Yet each has 
been, at to this point, successful, 
despite their intentional steps away 
from the traditional partisan scene.

As Americans, we laugh at the 

idea of an honest politician, which 
seems to us an apparent contradic-
tion. It’s what we would all love 
to see, but it doesn’t seem pos-
sible. Trump is an enigma, a man 
beyond 
understanding. 
But 
he 

finds himself aligned with Sanders’ 
 

hallmark activism.

The unlikely pair of opposites are 

each finding success. While Sanders 
is still behind Clinton by millions in 
fundraising, he is seemingly poll-
ing just as well in multiple early pri-
mary states. Trump, as mentioned, 
commands the GOP field. As often 
as the phrase “out of touch” has 
been thrown around among writ-
ers, Trump and Sanders are proving 
otherwise. It is the political machine 
itself that has run off the tracks laid 
by its constituents.

While it remains to be seen, Amer-

icans on both sides of the aisle believe 
Trump’s and Sanders’ promise of 
an honest campaign: one in which 
constituents won’t feel they have to 
worry about who lined their presi-
dent’s pockets for a free pass to influ-
ence future policy.

Sanders embraces the title “social-

ist.” Trump speaks openly about his 
wealth and his hair. They appear to 
be connecting to the public on a basic 
level of trust in the way most success-
ful, traditional bipartisan candidates 
have done. 

More than a desire for trust, by 

striving to keep super PACs out of the 
conversation, Trump and Sanders 
are empowering the individual voter. 
Knowing Sanders’ campaign sur-
vives on the donations from middle-
class supporters makes his strategy 
all the more significant the longer 
he stays relevant in the polls. His 
campaign is more of a direct prod-
uct of his popular supporters than 
 

any other.

Meanwhile, Trump is hacking 

through the tradition of neo-conser-
vatism with seemingly reckless aban-
don. The key issues he has brought to 
the spotlight surrounding immigra-
tion and tax reform are either in spite 
of himself or part of a cartoonish 
mastermind plan.

Either way, Trump and Sand-

ers are both succeeding, thanks 
in part to an anti-establishment 
message that meshes well with 
 

millennial culture.

It’s what Kanye West, self-pro-

claimed millennial and aspirant for 
the 2020 presidency, seemed to be 
channeling at certain points during 
his speech at the 2015 VMAs when 
he lashed out against the media’s 
manipulation of consumers, in a sim-
ilar way that politicians manipulate 
their voters.

“It ain’t about me,” West said. 

“It’s about new ideas, bro, people 
with new ideas, people who believe 
 

in truth.”

Any serious political forecaster 

would still say that Trump and 
Sanders are fringe candidates and 
that their aspirations for the White 
House will probably fall short. 
While that may prove true, they 
are each demonstrating a way of 
fighting conventional wisdom in 
ways similar to pop-culture icons 
like West, who have been met with 
 

thunderous applause.

West, with all the political quali-

fications of Trump, has somehow 
entered the summer circus of politics 
as well. It all seems too crazy. To this 
point, the most embattled people in 
this election have been longstanding 
fixtures in politics, like Clinton, and 
the parties themselves.

On one hand, it seems grotesquely 

American to be living in a country 
where this is all happening, like a 
 

cliché joke:

A businessman, a hippy and a 

singer walk into a bar … one of them 
becomes president. HA HA HA.

I assume Kanye will quickly drop 

out, but who’s to tell? Many said the 
same about Trump. It’s all too sur-
real, a total sea-change from what 
we’re used to in politics. As elec-
tion time draws nearer, maybe a 
sense of normalcy will return. But 
a political revolution has been the 
game all along — Sanders even says 
 

so outright.

Now, new millennial ideals can 

be expressed to help shape the evo-
lution of politics.

If politicians can find a way to 

run successful campaigns without 
big money, and if millennials do 
indeed subscribe to the idealistic 
beliefs of the Kanye doctrine, the 
old curmudgeons at party head-
quarters might start losing ground 
that newer generations could use to 
make room for change. 

— Tyler Scott can be reached 

at tylscott@umich.edu.

A political revolution

EVER FEELING LONELY BETWEEN 6 AND 8 P.M. ON 

MONDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS?

Check out The Michigan Daily’s editorial board meetings. Every 

Monday and Wednesday at 6 p.m., the Daily’s opinion staff meets 
to discuss both University and national affairs, and write editorials. 

E-mail tothedaily@michigandaily.com to join in the debate. 

F

or the past half year, the Iran nuclear 
deal has been discussed to the point of 
nausea. The agree-

ment has been brought to a 
TV near you because top-
ics like “nuclear weapons” 
and “Middle East policy” 
always make noise. So when 
they collide, the American public wants to 
know. But what is it about the particulars of 
the Iran deal that render it so controversial?

Negotiators from six world powers laid 

out a deal to cut off almost every pathway for 
Iran to construct a nuclear bomb. First, Iran 
must give up almost 97 percent of its enriched 
uranium and can only enrich their remaining 
stockpile to a measly 3.67 percent. (To build 
a nuclear bomb, uranium must be at least 90 
percent enriched.)

Furthermore, 
Iran’s 
centrifuges 
(the 

machines that can be used to mechani-
cally construct a bomb) have been cut from 
20,000 to 6,104, and Iran is inhibited from 
building new models. Finally, the origi-
nal core reactor manufacturing weapons-
grade plutonium (another element crucial 
to nuclear bomb construction) will be 
 

inoperable and its plutonium exported.

In return, economic sanctions crippling 

Iran will be lifted, opening their market to 
the world economy. The International Atomic 
Energy Agency will keep a close watch over 
Iranian nuclear development, and if they sus-
pect, for any reason, Iran is building a bomb, 
the sanctions will “snap back,” or be rein-
stated. The deal will likely delay a nuclear 
bomb for 25 years. Without a deal, some anal-
ysis indicates Iran could construct a bomb 
 

within months.

The deal appears agreeably straightfor-

ward: There is little possibility of a nuclear 
Iran and relief from economic sanctions will 
improve conditions for Iranian citizens in the 
long term. Seems like a win-win, right?

The deal’s haters don’t think so, and the most 

outspoken among them happen to be right-
wing Israelis and American Jews. Many who 
fall within this demographic feel that the Irani-
an nuclear deal will empower Iran economical-
ly and militarily, thereby jeopardizing Israel’s 
existence, as the nation is so often threatened 
by Middle Eastern leaders. But let me assure 
you, their fears are unwarranted.

Before I continue, I must quickly note here 

that I’m a Jewish American. I’ve had a Bar 
Mitzvah, graduated from my temple’s Hebrew 
school and volunteered in Israel. Additionally, 
I proudly call myself a Zionist — a supporter 
of Jews living in Israel. However, I, unlike too 
many supporters of Israel, do not believe the 
country will be extinguished and am critical of 
the country’s political elite.

Those least critical of Israel are those most 

afraid of losing it. Their insecurities case them 
to instinctively block deals like the one with 
Iran because any deal with the Middle East 
appears threatening. Ultimately, their fears 
cause them to prioritize security and inhibit 
them from fully evaluating their own leaders.

Part of the reason for this is because Iran 

nuclear deal haters feel they are in a world 
more similar to 1963, when Israel was con-

sistently attacked by sovereign nations, its 
infrastructure underdeveloped and its mili-
tary not one of the world’s best.

However, today’s Israel isn’t like that. 

In its current state, Israel is a fully devel-
oped country with a per-capita GDP of over 
$35,000. Israel’s citizens are college-educat-
ed at a rate second only to Canada, its tech-
nology and science sectors are among the 
world’s elite, and Israel has one of the world’s 
 

strongest militaries.

But, strategically, this is not how the 

Israeli right portrays itself. Constantly men-
tioning the Holocaust and anti-Semitism 
in his speeches, Prime Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu instills fear in the public in order 
to increase support for policies sometimes 
criticized for prejudice and racism. Citizens 
buy into his plan because the more fear-
ful Israelis become, the more security they 
desire. The more security they desire, the 
less sympathetic they are to issues regarding 
non-Israelis — particularly peace talks with 
Palestinians and other Arab (or Iranian) lead-
ers. The mindset with the Iran nuclear deal is 
 

no different.

Fears of Israel’s extinction have even spread 

to leftist American politicians. Jewish Repre-
sentatives like Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), Nita 
Lowey (D–N.Y.), Steve Israel (D–N.Y.) and Ted 
Deutch (D–Fla.) are among those who have 
followed the Israeli right’s lead in opposing 
the Iran deal because of their panicked con-
stituents. They believe any deal with Iran is 
bad because it will lead to Israel’s destruction. 
 

Unfortunately, when people support policy 

decisions based on the fear of their own (or 
someone else’s) existential threat, it has serious 
consequences. First, it severely prioritizes the 
nation’s own rights over all others for fear of 
being wiped from the planet. Their chief con-
cern becomes survival, thereby diminishing the 
importance of all other “unthreatened” lives. 
Second, because citizens are overly concerned 
with their own safety, it allows representa-
tives to harvest more unchecked power. These 
supporters strive for personal security by any 
 

means necessary.

Consequently, this mindset overlooks two 

critical points of the way modern day nation-
alism operates: the nature of globalization, in 
which continuously more people are demand-
ing basic human rights, and the functioning 
of democracy, in which leaders must be held 
accountable for their actions.

But many Iran nuclear deal haters don’t 

uphold these standards. They prioritize secu-
rity over peace, and safety over democracy. But 
when policy leaders don’t prioritize peace, they 
create more enemies and jeopardize security; 
and when one fails to pursue a democratic life-
style, one sacrifices civil liberties and poten-
tially infringes upon the rights of others.

These opponents of the Iran nuclear deal 

are concerned about the safety of Israel and 
become unwilling to accept agreements even 
when it’s in their best interest. They act this 
way because they are afraid. Their fear is 
 

my concern.

— Sam Corey can be reached 

at samcorey@umich.edu.

SAM 
COREY

TYLER
SCOTT

HOLLY RIDER-MILKOVICH | VIEWPOINT

Though individual experiences vary, two 

decades of research make it clear that sexual 
assault survivors are more likely to experi-
ence better outcomes in the legal and medical 
systems when they are supported by well-
trained, confidential advocates. They also 
report experiencing less isolation, anxiety 
and re-victimization when they work with 
confidential advocates.

And yet, our own campus climate survey of 

students tells us that, right now, fewer than 5 
percent of students share information about 
sexual misconduct with the University. Even 
more heartbreaking, the majority of students 
who experience a sexual assault tell no one 
about what happened to them. 

The University of Michigan is not unique 

in this regard, and other studies report that 
sexual assault survivors on college campuses 
are more likely to stay silent than share their 
information with anyone. 

If we care about the lives and futures of 

sexual assault survivors, we must do every-
thing in our power to reduce their isolation 
and increase their access to trained, experi-
enced and confidential advocates.

At the University’s Sexual Assault Preven-

tion and Awareness Center, we are committed 
to empowering survivors by providing clear 
and accurate information about their options 
in a confidential environment, and supporting 
their decisions — whether that be to formally 
report the experience to the University, to law 
enforcement or to not report their experience 
to either entity. 

We walk with survivors along the path 

that they choose, offering encouragement, 
resources and support at each step. We do not 
share any information with other officials at 
the University, or take any action, unless given 
explicit direction to do so by the survivor.

If someone you love is sexually assaulted, 

we strongly encourage you to listen to them 
without judgment, believe them and affirm 
their experience, support their decisions and 
connect them to trained confidential advo-
cates like those at SAPAC.

We are available for students, staff, faculty 

and parents 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 
at 734-936-3333.

Holly Rider-Milkovich is the director of 

the Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness 

Center at the University of Michigan.

Sexual assault survivors best 

served by confidential advocates

E-mail HEidi at HEidimaE@umicH.Edu
HEIDI LIU

