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. 

