Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
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 — Wednesday, February 10, 2016
I’m not sure who I will cast my
ballot for in November, let alone
in the Michigan primary. I have a
Bernie sticker on my laptop and a
Hillary magnet on my fridge. I am
constantly learning more about each
candidate, while also balancing my
pragmatic feelings from a tactical
strategic perspective. This article
is not about endorsing a candidate.
Sanders and Clinton will both
need to produce more convincing
evidence to inspire my allegiance.
Last week, when the results were
rolling in and the caucus-goers of
Iowa felt a similar split, resulting in
only a 0.2 percent win for Hillary
Clinton over Bernie Sanders, I felt
my
tentativeness
was
justified.
Eagerly, I turned to social media to
hear how everyone else had reacted
to the news. What I stumbled
upon was not a united liberal front
excited that two candidates had
proven viability, furthering the
discourse of economic inequalities
and women’s rights and looking to
expand protections for minority
groups. Instead, I found rhetoric
barely deserving of that term. It was
acrid and not politically engaging
or smart. It was a verbal assault on
the supporters of Clinton by the
supporters of Sanders.
“Bernie Bros,” as certain media
outlets have deemed them, are the
passionate, often young and often
(but not always) male supporters
of Sanders. These people are very
active on social media, and while
many supporters of Sanders have
followed his lead in a mostly positive
campaign focused on issues of
substance, this subset digresses.
There
are
varying
degrees
of
comments sponsored by “Bernie
Bros,” from portrayal of all Clinton
supporters as robotic, to insisting
that Ms. Clinton was vehemently
arrogant in her claim of victory at
the caucus.
The Sanders campaign, which
employs many people of politically
underrepresented backgrounds, has
asked its supporters several times
to “#FeelTheBern respectfully,” but
the damage has already been done.
Clinton has been the brunt of
overwhelming amounts of hate in
her time as a public official. She
has been called every name and
criminalized with every action —
and some of these characterizations
were valid, policy-based criticisms.
But why is it that her appearance
is constantly policed, while Mr.
Sanders is able to show up with his
unkempt white hair? Why is it that
“likability” is such a huge part of
journalism surrounding Ms. Clinton,
but people rarely wonder if Bernie is
charming enough to be electable?
Then there is the gross meme that
implores people to compare Sanders
and Clinton on the real issues, which
sounds innocuous enough. The
format of the meme is such: a text box
at the top populated with the issue
du jour, photos of the two Democrats
side by side, and text boxes below
each of their photos stating their
respective opinions. Some of them
are passively funny, the kind of joke
you smirk at out of recognition, not
real humor. The thing is, we’re not
voting for a president based on their
comedic chops. If we were, I think
Trump would’ve been ironically
instituted as supreme leader already.
Sadly,
this
meme
becomes
discomforting extremely quickly.
Sanders is depicted as a wild, crazy,
cool dude’s dude who is vaguely high
at all times. He’s shown as the kind
of guy you’d find on Reddit getting
way too excited about Radiohead.
He’s the bro who’s blowing your
mind with Marxist theory freshman
year, because of course you’ve never
heard of it before, while you’re
sitting by him on the stained, dusty
carpet of the staircase at a house
party. Clinton is depicted as a
67-year-old woman who has worked
in government for decades and not
done much other than deal with
testifying before Congress and work
on her campaign before watching
The Good Wife at night.
These portrayals aren’t equal.
Sanders
has
been
involved
in
government for 34 years, beginning
with an eight-year mayoral term in
Burlington, followed by 16 years in
the House, and nearly 10 years in the
Senate. He’s been in government for
a long time, dealing with issues, not
with Pokémon. Let’s recognize that.
Let’s acknowledge that all things
equal, Sanders and Clinton are both
veterans in American politics.
Why is she depicted as a boring
old woman and he gets to be a
carefree hip guy? It’s not only unfair
— it’s stupid. Clinton, and women
online everywhere, have tried to
portray themselves in certain ways
— only to face criticisms at every
turn. Sanders is better than that. I
implore his supporters to be better
than that, too.
Sanders
has
tried
to
frame
this campaign as a positive one,
and has stated his interest in
discussing the real problems faced
by real Americans. This meme
from his supporters does neither.
It, along with the derogatory online
interactions, drags the goals set by
the Sanders campaign to a despicably
low standard.
I think it says something real
about the power of the “Bernie
Bro” culture that I am hesitant and
even a little scared to write this
piece. And I agree with Sanders
on many issues! Publicly granting
Clinton a right to dignity and equal
treatment online should be a given.
My ability to have enthusiasm about
more than one candidate should be
a great victory for the Democratic
Party’s strong contenders. Instead,
these social media norms make my
stomach sink. I feel like if I say these
things, I will be chalked up as “just
another feminist” who is influenced
by “big money.” That is a serious
problem.
Despite my amazement with
Sanders’ ability to raise his campaign
funds from individual contributors,
his long history of supporting gay
rights and the phenomenon of his
jump from a 62-point trail to a dead
heat with Clinton, I have a really
hard time identifying with his
movement. When a vocal portion
of his supporters is so clearly
committed to firing antagonisms
into the Internet, I am being burned
by “the Bern.”
I cannot consciously align myself
with a movement that sours my
conscience, no matter how I feel
about it intellectually. That may
be a fault of my political identity
and, as some could perceive it,
sensitivity. But I’m not alone in
these reservations, and the Sanders
campaign will need to surmount
this in order to secure my (currently
wavering) vote for the primary.
Madeline Nowicki can be reached
at nowickim@umich.edu.
The Trump effect
E-mail michEllE at shEngmi@umich.Edu
MICHELLE SHENG
D
onald Trump’s campaign for president
still strikes me as some sort of cruel
performance piece or, at the very least,
a brilliantly orchestrated
satire of the American
political process — but
that’s precisely the point.
Trump is an entertainer,
and every aspect of this
quality is reflected in his
path to the presidency:
from his obscene remarks
to his pervasive presence
in the media. However, the
obvious issue with treating
a presidential election like
a reality TV show is that
it is decidedly not. There
are real-world consequences to plucking
at your audience like radicalized guitar
strings. Although Trump may be portraying
an exaggerated character for the sake of
garnering attention, the voters he attracts
are completely and terrifyingly genuine, and
represent something far more sinister than
political theater.
From the beginning, Trump has functioned
as a compelling figure in the context of the
political sphere. Upon announcing his bid in
June 2015, the real estate tycoon became an
eccentric asterisk in a race that was initially
Jeb Bush’s to win. Since then, his numbers
have skyrocketed to unforeseeable heights.
This influx of support is evidently not due to
his policies (which are vague at their best and
borderline fascist at their worst) or his political
experience (which is virtually nonexistent,
unless you count that time he almost ran for
president in 2000), but because of the way
he strategically markets himself to his target
demographic.
There are two noticeable personas that
Trump embodies, both of which seem to
work inexorably in his favor: the mogul
and the populist. The former rears its head
whenever the topic of debate shifts to more
“establishment” issues — he can be a smooth-
talking, well-connected entrepreneur with
decades of experience under his belt if it suits
the context. The latter persona, however, is
more present at his chaotic political rallies,
during which he hits the pressure points of the
average blue-collar American with impressive
precision — the personification of everything
you have ever heard your grandfather
complain about after a few beers, except
completely sober, embraced by millions, and
dangerously close to filling one of the most
influential positions on the planet.
Trump’s ability to alternate seamlessly
between his two political personalities has
proven to be his most effective campaign
strategy. The media tycoon fares just fine
with voters earning less than $50,000 per
year, despite lacking the classic “humble
beginnings”
narrative
that
politicians
commonly craft to score points with the
working class. For a man worth $4 billion,
Trump’s trick to wooing Middle America has
been to take on the role of a brutally honest,
anti-establishment
mouthpiece
for
the
economically downtrodden while effectively
sweeping his empire of greed, fraud and
opulence under the rug.
Nevertheless,
despite
his
surge
in
popularity, Donald Trump is only one (albeit
unorthodox) politician, and realistically, his
odds of actually becoming our 45th president
are slim — but the impact he’s had on voters
will linger long after his poll numbers
dwindle, and that is precisely the issue. The
hoards of supporters with whom his rhetoric
resonated will remain frustrated and militant
until some other politician comes along, using
vague phrases like “take our jobs back” and
“make America great again” to rouse them into
action.
Trump is playing a game with Americans
that not even he can win in the end, because
what he doesn’t realize is just how volatile
his voter base really is. His carefully crafted
stances on immigration, Islam and other
hot-button topics may be mere talking points
with which he can capture the extremely
conservative vote, but they are also real
opinions that his supporters hold, and
pandering to them only further radicalizes
this prejudiced ideology.
The Trump campaign has shaken the
political culture of this country to its core,
drawing out all of its most abhorrent qualities
in the process. Through loudness, hyperbole
and spectacle, he has managed to claw his
way to the top of the polls, leaving a trail of
misguided anger and xenophobia in his wake.
Of course, he didn’t plant these ideas in
people’s heads; they were there long before he
stepped onto the scene. He simply did what
he does best: interpret what his market wants
and cater to those desires (even the more
disturbing implicit ones). At the end of the
day, Trump is still an entertainer, but there
is nothing entertaining about what he has
created.
Lauren Schandevel can be reached
at schandla@umich.edu.
MADELINE NOWICKI | OP-ED
LAUREN
SCHANDEVEL
Social media’s double standard
W
e’re 10 months away
from electing a new
president. Ten whole
months
with
10
candidates
remaining in the
race among both
parties,
seven
more
televised
debates for the
primaries alone,
and we’re only
two states into
voting. I want to
get off and exit
this
wild
ride
of
an
election
already.
Yet here we are, almost a full
year after Ted Cruz became the first
major candidate to announce his
candidacy as we embarked on this
ride that has yet to even make its stop
in Michigan. Canadians completed
their recent election process in less
then three months, and the British
take a mere three and a half weeks to
elect an entire government, but that’s
simply not the American way, where
we supersize everything, including
the election process. Media stories
about election primaries and Donald
Trump quotes, all leading up to an
event nearly a year away, take news
precedence over the current refugee
crisis overseas, the Zika virus, the
Flint water crisis, whatever the heck
our government is doing while all
this politicking is going on, and even
given higher front-page placement
than the most American of all events:
the Super Bowl.
It’s a fatiguing process, in which
it takes five months of voting in
primaries and caucuses just to
figure out who will get the final
nomination at the party conventions
in July. Our society has advanced to
a stage where information can be
retrieved and transmitted quickly
and easily accessed via the Internet.
Which, in theory, should allow the
process to move quicker and allow
voters to make more intelligent
choices without relying on months
of
debates
and
campaigning;
instead, election season has become
a slogging marathon race through
a soaking trail of mud. It’s nothing
more than an exercise in angering
me, the American voter. Nobody
likes the marathon, and it’s long past
due to at least cut it to a mid-distance
race.
The process began to lengthen
in the 1960s, and the trend moved
away from internally nominated
candidates to placing emphasis
on the primaries with John F.
Kennedy’s candidacy. Along with
the fallout of the 1968 Democratic
Convention, the shift to focusing
on the results of state primaries
allowed for a larger field of potential
candidates to enter the fray, which
certainly makes the process more
democratic by invoking the opinions
of the citizens. The process also
gives more time for candidates to be
exposed to the public, and given the
changes in polls over time, it does
have an effect as the citizens begin
to settle on preferred candidates due
to the publicity.
However,
along
with
the
reasonably
positive
explanation
for early primaries, the early start
to the cycle highlights a darker
side of politics: money. Campaign
finance chiefs have floated out that
at least $50 million to $100 million
is necessary to financially compete
in the primaries, a figure that holds
consistent as five of the six leading
candidates
across
both
parties
(excluding
Donald
Trump
who
does not comparatively fundraise)
have raised more than $75 million
to date. Months before official
announcements, many candidates
gauge donor and vote interest to
test the viability of their campaign,
lengthening the whole process even
more. If enough money isn’t raised
early enough in the cycle, candidates
will
find
themselves
massively
underprepared for the marathon of
campaigning.
Whatever combination of causes
has led to this, the result is months of
campaigning that goes on despite the
majority of Americans agreeing that
the season is too long, significantly
over-covered by the media compared
to actual news interest, and having
mixed opinions on whether the
campaigns are even informative.
More simply put: It’s a massive waste
of time and resources for something
that should be carried out more
efficiently. Elections take time, but
the expansion of the process has
only brought increasing political
noise and tabloid-like coverage to the
process for up to half of a presidential
cycle. Far more important than any
benefits of the primary process is
the impedance of the discussion of
important issues covered up by the
never-ending election and the lost
productivity that it entails. And
when voter turnout is often low in
these elections, such reasons are
contributing factors.
Solutions for the problem of the
ever-expanding election calendar
including
eliminating
donation
limits and thus lightening the need
to court high amounts of unique
donors,
reducing
the
influence
of primaries by scheduling less,
increasing the number of unpledged
convention delegates, to changing
the primary scheduling as the
parties have already done for 2016.
It’ll take a combination of many
reforms to curb the advantage of
early entry and require the support
of the politicians themselves, always
a difficult task but for a worthy cause
of moving toward an efficient model
that better serves the citizens whom
our elections impact.
David Harris can be reached
at dharr@umich.edu.
DAVID
HARRIS
The political marathon
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala,
Aarica Marsh, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa
Scholke, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn,
Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
— Sen. Bernie Sanders after winning the New Hampshire Democratic primary
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
People should not be financially distressed for decades for
the crime, the crime of trying to get a higher education.
That’s absurd.