L
ast Monday, I had the
pleasure
of
watching
what
may
very
well
be the fall of Western liberal
democracy.
No,
not
the
newest episode of
“Keeping Up with
the
Kardashians,”
rather,
the
presidential debate.
I
went
into
the
debate with a deep
fear Donald Trump
could
rehabilitate
his image among the
American
public.
Hillary
Clinton’s
seven-point
lead
over the summer
had evaporated to the margin of
error. If Trump had acted like a
functioning adult for the entire
debate he could have captured
the vote of the undecided voters,
swinging the race.
Fortunately, that’s not what
happened. Trump was Trump
and had a YUGE* breakdown
after 15 minutes. Afterward, I
was discussing the rout with
a number of my friends, and
someone claimed it was the most
devastating debate since the
Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960.
As the apocryphon goes, John
F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon’s
debate hinged on makeup. The
debate was the first one to ever
be televised and Kennedy was
prepared. He wore makeup to
maintain his legendary good
looks under the debate set’s
harsh lighting. Nixon, on the
other hand, had decided that
getting dolled up for the debate
was too feminine a proposition
for him.
The results? Nixon melted
Wicked-Witch-of-the-West
style and viewers gravitated
toward Kennedy, who kept
both
physical
and
mental
composure against the then-
vice president. The final twist
was that people who listened to
the debate on the radio thought
that Nixon’s ideas were better
and were more likely to support
him. It wasn’t that Nixon
did poorly, per se, but rather
audiences had different ideas of
what constitutes a good debate
performance depending on if
they listened to or watched it.
This parable aptly describes
how difficult it was
to
assess
Trump’s
debate
performance,
especially
to
an
undecided voter. This
goes
beyond
mere
partisan
differences.
Of course there are
going to be adherents
who will crown their
party’s candidate the
winner no matter what.
As an aside, I found
it
interesting
that
what were once big applause
lines for Bernie Sanders about
the failings of NAFTA were
points of heckling for Trump.
I think this speaks to Trump’s
sheer unpopularity with college
students. I don’t know what
a man dying sounds like but
social death probably sounds
something like, “You know, I
really think Trump has a point
there.”
Trump is so hard to assess
as a debater because of the
singular nature of his politics.
I find his comments about
Mexicans to be deplorable and
they should have disqualified
him from the presidency from
day one. However, many of
his
supporters
find
these
comments
refreshing;
they
believe Trump is speaking the
unvarnished
truth.
Indeed,
one
of
the
most
common
compliments given to Trump
is that he speaks his mind. In
essence, he’s flipped the idea of
what constitutes negative news
coverage on its head. I recall
reading
an
interview
with
a Trump supporter several
months ago. When the subject
was
pressed
on
Trump’s
racism, he claimed that he
wasn’t bothered by it and
that those comments weren’t
made
for
people
like
the
reporter anyway. “People like
the reporter” being college-
educated liberals, e.g., me. In
essence, this is what makes
it tough to parse out what is
divisive news coverage and
what is categorically negative.
Not all of Trump’s comments
bring universal praise among his
supporters. Over the summer,
his attacks on the Khans, two
parents who lost their Medal of
Honor son in Iraq, caused him
to lose a lot of support. But I
wouldn’t have considered the
opposite effect occurring to be
outside the realm of possibility.
His style of debating is
similarly mystifying. The way
he interrupted Clinton was
interpreted by many liberal
commentators to be a plain-
faced
display
of
Trump’s
misogyny. Yet his supporters
find his bluster and desire to not
play by the rules invigorating.
Similarly, his use of personal
attacks on Clinton when asked
about policy issues are hard to
read. Maybe the undecided voter
found his responses to those
questions more compelling than
a substantive policy description
would be.
Political
pundits
have
constantly
misread
Trump’s
ascent, claiming it would be
derailed every step of the way.
I think part of the reason why
is they have grown accustomed
to a certain type of candidate
who fits their mold of an
effective debater. I don’t see
the Trump phenomenon going
away. The fissures that Trump
has reopened won’t go away in
four short years. I’m sure that
there will be another Trump
in 2020. This leaves us with
the question of what to do. We
can’t answer that question yet,
but I do believe the only way
we can understand the next
Trump’s rise is if we break out
of our analytic mold of what
constitutes a good politician.
*I sincerely apologize for
doing this. These jokes aren’t
funny anymore.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Roland Davidson can be reached at
mhenryda@umich.edu
A different politician
ROLAND DAVIDSON | COLUMN
FRANCES MILLER | CONTACT FRANCES AT FRMILLER@UMICH.EDU
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.
SHOHAM GEVA
Editor in Chief
CLAIRE BRYAN
and REGAN DETWILER
Editorial Page Editors
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.
Carolyn Ayaub
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
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
W
ith more than 84
million people tuned
in across the country
(shattering a record set in 1980),
Monday night’s first presidential
debate was already
posed to be historic.
Yet, while I sat in
my
living
room,
actively
hoping
for
a
substantial
two-sided
policy
debate,
I
found
myself
growing
increasingly
frustrated
by
my
naïveté.
Instead
of
taking
the
opportunity to discuss real,
viable plans, Donald Trump
gave all 84 million of us more
meaningless rhetoric.
I endured Trump’s continuous
interruptions of “wrong!” when
Hillary Clinton said just about
anything, rolled my eyes at his
comment of “that makes me
smart” when confronted with
his neglect to pay federal income
taxes and grew a little red in
the face when he discussed the
“small loan” of about $1 million
he received from his father to
start his business. But nothing
infuriated me more than the two
words Mr. Trump used when
Lester Holt asked the candidates
on Monday how they would heal
the growing racial divide in
our country: law and order. His
solution to the systemic racism,
police shootings, discrimination
and general intolerance in our
country is law and order —
words, not plans.
Holt is absolutely correct:
Race relations in our country are
worsening by the day. The recent
killings of Keith Lamont Scott in
Charlotte and Terence Crutcher
in Tulsa sit atop a growing
list of fatal police shootings of
unarmed Black men. And while
there are those who argue,
correctly, that more white men
are killed by police
each year overall, these
people fail to adjust
for
population
size
— 62 percent of our
country is white, while
13 percent is Black.
As The Washington
Post
found
in
its
recent study, “Black
Americans
are
2.5
times as likely as white
Americans to be shot
and killed by police officers.”
Clearly,
there
is
something
wrong here.
Clinton
isn’t
without
her
flaws, but at least she gave us
real plans to combat racial
injustice in our nation Monday
night. She discussed criminal
justice reform, gun control and
community-police relationships
— all important stepping stones
in helping to heal the divide.
Taking a look at her website,
Clinton has entire pages of plans
to reform the criminal justice
system, including committing
$1 billion in her first budget
to police training to challenge
implicit
bias,
bettering
the
enforcement of the Voting Rights
Act and contining a push for gun
violence prevention — including
eliminating
the
“Charleston
Loophole” — to name but a few.
I scoured Trump’s website and
found not a single policy position
on race relations. The closest I
came to something resembling
a race-related position was a
section promising to “get gang
members and drug dealers off the
street” in his section regarding
the Second Amendment.
During the debate Trump
went
on
to
advocate
for
stop-and-frisk
measures,
which were indeed declared
unconstitutional in New York.
(To be sure, stop and frisk is
a legal — albeit problematic —
police tactic, but its application
was declared unconstitutional
in New York because it was used
to
disproportionately
affect
minority groups.) This is no plan
to help heal the racial divide.
This is a plan to widen it. To make
matters worse, when discussing
the recent shooting and protests
in Charlotte, he called it, “a
city I love, a city where I have
investments.” His interest in
Charlotte lies within his wallet,
not in helping the people who are
hurt, discouraged and angry by
their current situation.
You may ask how I, a white
woman, have any right to discuss
this topic. And you’re right. I
most likely will never lose a
brother, a cousin or a father
at the hands of police. I don’t
know what it’s like to experience
systemic racism on a daily
basis. But I am a human who is
sickened by the gross abuse and
mistreatment of other humans.
And nothing will change if we
cannot have an open and honest
discussion about it.
“Law” and “order” are two
absolutely meaningless words
used to stir a reaction. We need
a president who doesn’t just talk.
We need a president who acts.
Get out and vote on Nov. 8. It’s
important.
Meaningless rhetoric
MELISSA STRAUSS | COLUMN
S
ept.
11,
2001:
Vice
President
Dick
Cheney
is gripping a phone close
to his ear as he sits within the
crowded bunker beneath the East
Wing of the White House. Two
planes have hit the
World Trade Center
— and a third just
struck the Pentagon.
On the other end of
the
line,
Secretary
of
Defense
Donald
Rumsfeld informs the
vice president he has
scrambled fighter jets
above
Washington
to
intercept
other
planes still in the air.
A military aid turns
to Cheney and asks whether
the planes should be shot down.
According to Scooter Libby, chief
of staff to the vice president,
“Cheney paused for ‘about the
time it takes a batter to swing,’ …
then he answered: Yes.”
After the chaos of that day,
both Bush and Cheney attempted
to “correct” the record, stating
the president communicated the
order to engage civilian aircraft
above the skies in Washington.
Yet many within the bunker of
the East Wing disavow such
claims, and Cheney did in fact
make that call. This distinction
is important because it marked
a dynamic between Bush and
Cheney that lasted the entirety
of their administration. This
dynamic was dangerous, and it
can potentially occur again.
The Cheney vice presidency
is often regarded as the most
powerful and influential in U.S.
history. His role resembled that
of a co-president who operated
outside the national spotlight. He
had virtually unlimited access
to the Oval Office, where he
persuaded Bush to allow him to
handle the more nuanced issues
of the presidency. Bush didn’t
like such intricate and political
details — often wanting only to
understand the “big picture.”
Cheney’s
neoconservative
influence
shaped
post-9/11
America.
He
enacted
the
controversial
tax
cuts,
the
enhanced
interrogation
program in Guantanamo Bay
and the constitutionally illegal
surveillance
program
with
the NSA. He was also a main
proponent of the invasion of
Iraq in 2003. His vice presidency
was shrouded in scandal and, by
the time of the administration’s
departure, he carried a 13 percent
approval rating.
And
this
is
the
vice
presidency Gov. Mike Pence
has decided to model his future
after.
“I
frankly
hold Dick Cheney in
really high regard
in his role as vice
president and as an
American,”
Pence
told ABC News. But
unlike Cheney, who
angled his position
to better suit his
power, Pence may
simply be handed
authority over the
country. The New
York Times revealed Trump’s
plans on taking a chairman-of-
the-board approach toward the
presidency, calling for his vice
president to be in charge of
“domestic and foreign policy,”
while
Trump
focuses
on
“making America great again”
— whatever that means.
Throughout the entirety of his
campaign, Trump has displayed
a lack of knowledge and care
toward even the simplest of
issues. He has demonstrated no
understanding of the nuclear
triad, the function of NATO or
actual economic and tax policy.
This may all be because he has
no desire to learn or understand.
He is simply a celebrity riding on
waves of outrage that guarantee
constant
media
attention.
His campaign is made up of
controversial
interviews
and
hosting rallies full of thousands of
supporters screaming his name.
But actually running the country
would be far different from the
rallies he hosts and celebrity
status he receives. It would be
reasonable to imagine Pence
actively running the country
as vice president while Trump
vacations down in Mar-a-Lago.
This would put Pence in a
position of great power and
influence operating outside what
voters truly envisioned. Pence
doesn’t differ on issues with his
running mate — he simply has
the focus and drive to enact his
own policy. And what exactly
are the beliefs of Pence, and
how have these beliefs impacted
his management of the state of
Indiana? He believes climate
change is a myth, doesn’t believe
in evolution, voted against raising
the minimum wage, has opposed
funding to combat AIDS saying
the money could be better spent
trying to “cure” homosexuality,
enacted a law that outright
banned abortion and waged a
career-long war against Planned
Parenthood
that
included
slashing
their
funding
and
demonizing their organization.
One can imagine a Pence
vice presidency enacting the
same
radically
conservative
policies of Indiana on a national
scale. A Pence vice presidency
would deny the existence of
global warming and increase
the severity of climate change.
The
administration
would
stand steadfast in opposition
to raising the minimum wage,
which would bring a disgusting
level of income inequality in the
United States. Pence could push
to fill the current vacant seat and
future open seats of the Supreme
Court with justices in staunch
opposition to the liberal progress
our country has made over the last
50 years. America could witness
restrictions on a woman’s access
to contraceptives and abortions,
reversals on rights ensuring gay
marriage and further inequality
for
transgender
people.
The
country
could
witness
the
conservative reduction in the
size of the government until it
was just small enough to fit in the
bedroom of every American.
Americans didn’t know of
Cheney’s intentions, nor did they
anticipate his ability to influence
national policies. He was granted
carte blanche on matters of
national security, and enacted
some of the most controversial
and damaging policies during his
tenure. And this occurred under
the watch of Bush, who didn’t
intently desire for Cheney to
have such power, but allowed for
him to angle his way into greater
positions of power.
Yet this time, the United
States is presented with an
ignorant
candidate
whose
campaign has planned on a vice
president being in charge of
“domestic and foreign policy.”
If our country learned anything
from the failures of the Cheney-
Bush dynamic, we would see the
present situation is far worse and
should be prevented at all costs.
Michael Mordarski can be reached
at mmordars@umich.edu
Is Pence the new Cheney?
MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN
Melissa Strauss can be reached at
melstrau@umich.edu
ROLAND
DAVIDSON
MELISSA
STRAUSS
MICHAEL
MORDARSKI
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.
“Fall Weather”