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
4 — Tuesday, March 8, 2016
T
he Two Cultures theory is an idea
born from scientist C. P. Snow that
criticizes the British educational sys-
tem. His theory explains
the clash between two
opposing cultures — in
his case, the arts and the
sciences — and how their
relationship was critical
to adequate preparation
for managing the modern
world.
Snow
was
outraged
that learning Greek or
Latin
overshadowed
learning about the engi-
neering
and
scientific
advances that were so critical to winning
World War II in the classroom. He argued
that countries like the United States and Ger-
many, which emphasized educating its stu-
dents in both the sciences and arts, gained
competitive advantages.
Since the coining of the theory, this idea
has taken on a life of its own. Some would
argue that the theory creates a forced dichot-
omy that in reality does not exist. I disagree.
I have experienced this dis-
tinct binary within the music
industry.
Personally, I have heard
animosity from record label
executives about the dif-
fering perspectives of run-
ning a music company. On
one hand, label veterans
understand how to locate
and develop talent. On the
other hand, an outsider with
a business degree may think
differently about how to
operate an efficient business
model. The argument as to
which perspective is better
— music veterans or business savvy outsiders
— is really the discussion of which “culture”
should carry more weight.
In a speech in 2010, Steve Jobs explained
that part of his philosophical view for Apple
was that “technology alone is not enough
— it’s technology married with liberal arts,
married with the humanities, that yields us
the results that make our heart sing.”
Jobs would argue, as would I, that both
perspectives must exist in tandem.
For a long time, a sophisticated scientif-
ic culture did not exist prominently in the
music industry, if at all. However, a growing
curiosity toward applying the sciences — or
at least data — has begun to emerge. The
recent success of analytic companies like
Next Big Sound will help to define a second
culture in music. More advanced technolo-
gy and analysis should be embraced, rather
than rejected, as streaming services have
been previously. Streaming services have
been attacked for their low royalty payouts
and that still is a concern, but it shouldn’t
dominate the perception of tech companies
in music. They are doing a lot of good, too,
by bringing data-oriented minds into the
music world. Taylor Swift boycotting the
streaming services makes for flashy head-
lines. Yet, Will Page, Spotify’s director of
economics, is doing important work assess-
ing the impact of music festivals on local
economies. And that should not go over-
looked.
South by Southwest, a music festival held
in Austin, Texas, which has an artist lineup
as diverse as its events, is a great example of
how to intertwine these two cultures. The
festival brings together hundreds of thou-
sands of visitors for a weekend of music per-
formances as well as technology and business
conferences. At the most recent South by
Southwest festival, economist Paul Krugman
sat alongside other panelist discussing his
notion of a new celeb-
rity economy for artists
— the idea that artists
no longer make money
from selling music, but
from
capitalizing
on
their celebrity branding
through licensing, tours,
etc. It’s an interesting
point that creates a com-
pelling picture for the
future of music.
But this crossroads
in Austin must ripple
throughout the indus-
try. Labels and their
artists should be keen-
ly aware of economists like Krugman and
invested in the discussions occurring at
conferences across the country. For the sake
of the long-term vitality of the music indus-
try, the musicians and those promoting
their work should be encouraged to think
about innovations in big data and appreci-
ate their worth. And to their credit, some
labels have been quite proactive in doing so.
300 Entertainment developing talented art-
ists while building partnerships with tech
companies paves the way for the rest of the
music industry, and hopefully other indus-
tries, to follow suit.
— Zach Brown can be reached
at zmbrown@umich.edu.
Two cultures clashing
O
bjectivity is in many ways
a myth — but this isn’t a
novel thought. I think we
all accept that
no one can be
truly objective
in
how
they
view a situa-
tion. But our
lack of objec-
tivity goes even
deeper
since
worldview
is
continually
influenced
by
environment.
Monday
night, I went to the Bernie Sanders
Rally at Crisler Center. It was one
of the most fun events I’ve attend-
ed recently — and I’m a Republi-
can.
The audience’s excitement was
palpable and contagious. The vibe
was simultaneously relaxed and
passionate; the music bounced
back and forth between chill
instrumentals and hardcore rock
songs about freedom.
I’ve been to several rallies as a
volunteer and interned on several
campaigns, but this was by far
the youngest and most energetic
crowd I’ve seen at a campaign
rally. The two girls sitting next to
me screamed like they were at a
One Direction concert, and shout-
ed, “let’s go!” and “primaries,
baby!” at various points through-
out the rally. The couple sitting
in front of me showed their sup-
port while holding a pair of giant
sound-blocking headphones over
their baby’s ears.
While I don’t agree with his pol-
icies or self-proclaimed socialist
ideology, the excitement Sanders
has managed to generate makes
perfect sense.
Sanders’ platform is filled with
policies that promise a radical
deviation from the status quo of
American politics. Opening speak-
ers cited his promises to provide
free college education and prevent
manufacturing jobs from moving
overseas by blocking free-trade
agreements like the Trans-Pacific
Partnership.
As countries in the global south
liberalized their economies — in
part due to pressure from the
United States — millions of U.S.
manufacturing jobs have moved
overseas to countries where the
market price for labor is consider-
ably lower. As high-paying manu-
facturing jobs that don’t require a
college education become scarce,
affording an education becomes
both more difficult and more
important. It also doesn’t help
that the cost of college is rising for
other reasons, and the Europeans
get it for free.
On both the left and right,
U.S. voters are responding with
excitement to policies designed
to remedy the perceived decline
in American exceptionalism. Both
Donald Trump and Sanders have
invoked the idea that the U.S.
is losing from free-trade agree-
ments.
On the right, rhetoric has been
xenophobic and accusatory, blam-
ing migrant workers and Chinese
currency manipulation for the
anemic growth of the U.S. econo-
my. On the left, it has blamed capi-
talism and international trade for
the same issue.
Capitalism is a logical target
for Americans’ frustrations. After
all, free trade really has allowed
great jobs to move overseas, and
this really has exacerbated income
inequality. The only reason this
is possible is because other coun-
tries transitioned to open-market
economies.
But what the Sanders campaign
fails to recognize is that global
capitalism has lifted more than a
billion people out of extreme pov-
erty in the last 20 years alone.
Sanders
runs
an
egalitar-
ian campaign. But if promoting
anti-trade policies that help U.S.
union workers at the expense of
the world’s poorest people isn’t
American privilege, I don’t know
what is. If the left is willing to sit
back and throw stones at Trump’s
racist rhetoric, then they should
certainly be more critical of their
own candidate’s policies that can
only address domestic inequality
at the expense of millions of peo-
ple around the world.
But I’ve gotten ahead of myself
a bit, because Sanders’ policies
aren’t really ready for that sort
of serious analysis. The sort of
changes Sanders promotes are
far beyond the scope of anything
a U.S. president can reasonably
hope
to
accomplish
unilater-
ally — or constitutionally. Given
the recent Congressional grid-
lock and the fact that several U.S.
entitlement programs are already
systemically underfunded — I’m
looking at you, social security —
it seems unlikely that Congress
would approve a plan to provide
free college tuition. That’s simply
not something that could happen
via executive order.
I know that some of you read-
ing this are probably feeling the
Bern. Maybe you were even one of
the enthusiastic voters screaming
at the rally. And I can see why you
would.
Sanders promises change, and
change is exciting. Obama excited
voters by promising change, too.
But it’s hard to point to any thrill-
ing shifts in U.S. policies from the
past eight years. There’s an impor-
tant lesson in that fact — Ameri-
can policymaking is much more
gradual and far less earth shat-
tering than election and campaign
promises.
An
adequate
response
to
increasing
competition
from
abroad and inequality at home
cannot be derived by unrealistic
campaign promises — no mat-
ter how exciting. We don’t need a
socialist in the White House. We
need a president who knows how
to make global capitalism work
more efficiently and equitably for
Americans. Sanders is not that
candidate.
— Victoria Noble can be
reached at vjnoble@umich.edu.
We don’t need Bernie’s socialism
VICTORIA
NOBLE
ZACH
BROWN
Clinton
has
changed
a
tremendous
amount throughout her political career, with
extreme flip-flopping on social issues and
a lack of transparency on this flip-flopping,
until recently. This warrants hesitation in
trusting Clinton to stay strong to her policies.
However, we choose to believe her ability
to grow and learn from her changes shows
a productive, nuanced and detail-oriented
approach to changes in policy that naturally
reflect changes in our nation’s culture.
We watched Obama win the presidential
election with a campaign promoting hope and
optimism to the masses. And we have now
watched eight years in which Obama worked
tirelessly, and many times futility, to pass
legislation on many of these hopes he had for
our country. Though Sanders’ platform has
this same hope and it is admirable, it is not
realistic. Presidents have a day job beyond
promoting a political-revolution rhetoric and
Clinton has the policy agendas, experience
and resources to be president.
***
In the Republican primary race, we find
an atmosphere characterized by aggressive
rhetoric that is racist, sexist, bigoted and
lacking in any substantive stances on policies.
Out of this mess, Ohio Governor John Kasich
(R) has emerged as the most sensible option
for Republican voters. With ample experience
as a member of the House Budget Committee
and governor of Ohio, Kasich has a track
record of not just addressing policy issues, but
working in tandem with Democrats to pass
legislation.
Kasich has demonstrated his pragmatism
in policies such as accepting the Medicaid
expansion of Obamacare — something many
Republican governors refused to do. He
accepts the realities of manmade climate
change, whereas other Republican candidates
have refused to accept even the existence
of global warming. He was influential in
balancing federal budgets by collaborating
with a Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
As governor of a state with substantial
ideological diversity, Kasich has been keen on
approaching issues with practicality in mind.
Unfortunately
for
the
governor,
his
relatively moderate views have gained him
less than desirable polling results. The
Republican voting bloc has contributed to
candidates’ gradual shift alarmingly far to the
right, to the point where the frontrunner is a
self-avowed bigot. The two other candidates
with the most delegates are darlings of the
ultra-conservative Tea Party Movement.
Kasich is proving to be the best out of several
bad options.
Kasich is certainly not without his faults.
In Ohio he is currently pushing for legislation
that would defund Planned Parenthood — a
critical provider of women’s health services
beyond just abortion. He has also advocated
the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a
policy that would effectively strip the health
coverage of millions. However, compared
to the rest of the Republican slate, there is a
stark difference between Kasich’s approach
and those of his competitors. For Republican
voters looking for someone who has not
succumbed to the unfortunate state of affairs
in the Republican presidential race, John
Kasich is the only viable option.
S
en. Bernie Sanders wants to
cure society’s cancer. While
he may have an uncanny
ability to speak
poetically about
realigning
the
economic play-
ing field to bet-
ter enfranchise
people
of
all
classes,
colors
and creeds, he
fails to recog-
nize that cancer
is “a collection of
related
diseas-
es” driven by a
diverse array of often confounding
caustic variables — not a singular,
static disease with one cause and
one treatment. Though he certainly
acknowledges the associations of
racism, sexism and xenophobia,
among others, with society’s can-
cer, his steadfast insistence that just
fixing our rigged economy will cure
us is a gross oversimplification.
Former Secretary of State Hill-
ary Clinton, on the other hand,
takes a more dynamic and multi-
faceted view. Though she does not
elicit the same excitement as Sand-
ers when addressing large crowds,
her ability to examine and analyze
problems through a variety of lens-
es is simultaneously remarkable
and inspiring. She understands that
society’s cancers have metastasized
to a degree where one generalized
solution will simply not cut it.
Clinton’s life story is one of resil-
ience in the face of (sometimes self-
inflicted) attacks on her integrity.
She has stood up to a sexist status
quo and continues to break down
the barriers separating the assump-
tions about and expectations of
people of all genders. Her resilience
has the potential to resonate with
millions of Americans who have
overcome struggles with a steeled
resolve to leave their children
and grandchildren better off than
themselves.
I do not mean to take any-
thing away from Sanders, who has
brought an important issue to the
forefront of public conversation,
and is an excellent candidate to
address the inequities pervasive
in our current economic system.
He has also successfully mobilized
new and previously disenfran-
chised voters crucial for winning
the White House in November.
Given the stakes of their cam-
paigns, it is not unreasonable to
question both candidates’ qualifi-
cations, explore past accomplish-
ments and demand transparency
about any inconsistencies.
While Sanders certainly says
the right things, he is often unable
to back up his statements with the
concrete steps he would take as
president to make change. He is not
a single-issue candidate because
he only talks about one issue; he is
a single-issue candidate because
he advocates the same solution to
every problem.
Clinton, too, is not without her
drawbacks. Though she could cer-
tainly be more transparent about
her past missteps, her reluctance to
do so represents the very human-
ity that she is often denied by her
detractors. To expect someone
who has spent her whole career
being unfairly dismissed — often
with arguments that fall outside
the realm of logic and reason — to
openly admit past mistakes, while
a fair expectation in a presidential
campaign, is also one that I expect
to come to fruition as the campaign
moves forwards.
I recognize the potential hypoc-
risy in my argument. I am cynical
about the possibility of Sanders’
promises materializing, yet I am
optimistic that Clinton will be more
open to discussing the discrepan-
cies that cloud her past. This is in
part because she has already start-
ed to do so.
Furthermore, I am more wor-
ried about the failure of Sanders’
planned
political
revolution
—
which I concede would be rather
brilliant — than I am the effects of
Clinton’s past on her ability to not
only win the general election, but
also to effectively govern the day
she gets into office.
We have made real progress
exposing and strategically dis-
mantling the multitude of malig-
nancies
that
inhabit
various
regions of our society over the past
eight years. We need a president
who can navigate through our
complicated political landscape,
starting not after a few years on
the job, but on day one.
Hillary
Clinton’s
breadth
of
knowledge, her experience chal-
lenging a rigged status quo and her
ability to think about and address
issues through more than one lens
make her the best candidate for
president in 2016.
— Danny Sack can be reached
at sackd@umich.edu.
#I’mWithHer
DANNY
SACK
Capitalism is a logical
target for Americans’
frustrations.
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy
Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala,
Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke,
Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Musicians and those
promoting their work
should be encouraged
to think about
innovations in big
data and appreciate
their worth.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be
550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University
affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
CLINTON
From Page 1