W
inning
and
losing
is the essence of
politics, and losing
badly is exactly what happened
to Democrats across the country
on Nov. 8. As Democrats, the
losses we suffered all the way
down the ballot on Election Day
would have been disappointing
at a minimum, even if some other
run-of-the-mill
Conservative
was at the top of the Republican
ticket.
However,
given
the
sexist, xenophobic, racist and
bigoted rhetoric of President-
elect Donald Trump’s campaign,
the outcome was more than
disappointing
—
it
was
devastating. In a few months, the
incoming administration will
begin to implement policies that
will have extremely negative
effects on many individuals
and communities. But we are
already seeing this election’s
impact in the episodes of ethnic
intimidation and violence on
our campus, which is not only
devastating; it’s horrifying.
By now, many — if not all
— students are aware of the
#NotMyCampus letter that has
been circulated by Conservative
students,
including
some
members of the University of
Michigan’s chapter of College
Republicans. In that letter, there
is
one
particular
statement
that epitomizes the disconnect
between
Conservatives
on
campus and the broader campus
community. The author states:
“This was an election, nothing
more, nothing less.” We could
not disagree more. Yes, this was
an election. Yes, in every election
there is a winner and a loser. But
what we have seen take place in
the last few days on our campus
alone should indicate clearly and
loudly that this was much more.
Hate speech is not politics.
The dehumanization of women
and underrepresented minorities
is not politics. The harassment,
intimidation
and
assault
of members of our campus
community
based
on
their
religion, race or other identities
is not politics. Conservatives,
from national elected officials
to some of our family members
to some of our classmates, have
bent over backward to separate
conventional
Republican
ideology from hateful rhetoric
and small mindedness.
Perhaps, in an effort to see the
best in people, we want to believe
them, to trust that it was promises
regarding
trade
or
national
security that motivated support
for someone like Trump. As
progressives, though, any effort
to see things from this positive,
rationalizing
perspective
is
undermined by the inability of
Conservatives to respect, or even
try to understand, the processing
of fear, grief and loss that many
people on this campus have
experienced since Election Day.
The fear is not of Republican
policies, per se, but of walking
down the street at night in a
hijab or other religious attire.
The grief is not over a defeat or
a death, but grief nonetheless
that a country we all love, and
people some of us view as friends
and neighbors, chose to endorse
hatred. The loss is not merely in
the electoral sense, but rather
in the denial of humanity that
many marginalized groups and
individuals view this outcome
as representing. The election
of a Republican president is not
what sparked protests, vigils
and walkouts. The true root
of this anger and sadness is
more complex. It is the jarring
realization that perhaps the
ignorance and bigotry that many
of us were taught to eschew
as children is the path, not to
societal reprimand and isolation
on the backwaters of the internet,
but to political power. It is the
crushing
understanding
that
many of our fellow Americans
made
the
ultimately
selfish
choice to overlook threats to the
humanity of so many and instead
cast their votes on the basis of
partisanship or a single issue.
We know, however, that this
outbreak of hate is not the whole
story. The outpouring of love
and support for one another
that the majority of students
on this campus have displayed
shows us that this cannot be the
case. This country, this state
and this University ought to be
communities where everyone
feels safe, and students have
shown they are ready and
willing to fight for that to be
true. We have not lost faith in
our ability to make change, and
in the two years leading up to
the enormously consequential
election of 2018, we will be there
working and fighting.
More important, however, is
what happens right now. We all
must stand in solidarity with one
another. We must support those
fighting for change and those
seeking to have their voices
heard within a system that has
not always listened. We must
stand up to those who would
use conservatism as a shield
for intolerance. We must hold
elected officials, whether we are
the ones who helped put them
in office or not, accountable. We
must use our immense power
as people to organize against,
mobilize against and ultimately
remove from office those who do
not represent us, our values or
the community, communities we
want to be a part of. We pledge to
do that to the best of our ability
and we challenge you to help us
do that work in any way you can.
Activism, advocacy and politics
are difficult callings that come
with inherent highs and lows.
No matter where you fall on the
ideological spectrum, fighting
for what you believe in is a long
and constant struggle. It won’t
be easy. It may not be fun. But
we pledge to listen openly and
honestly. Standing together, we
will do the work and we will
succeed.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, November 22, 2016
It’s not just politics
It is time to argue for unity
MAX RYSZTAK | ARTICLE TYPE
T
wo weeks after the
election,
members
of
our
community
still feel attacked, reduced
and unsafe — no matter their
political
opinion.
The days following
the
presidential
election have been
hard on us all. These
feelings cannot go
unnoticed; they are
justified, regardless
of political party or
ideology.
There
is
still
an
unmeasurable
animosity
between
the
left
and
the
right, but I truly believe there is
plenty of room to come together.
Before this can happen, people
need to accept the results of
election
night.
Refusing
to
accept the results, crying for
the abolishment of the Electoral
College and spreading hate
against our peers, no matter
who they voted for, hinders our
community’s ability to unify
after the election — and both
sides are at fault.
If you truly want the inclusive
country many of you argue for,
it’s time to stop calling Trump
voters
sexists,
misogynists,
racist and bigots. Whether you
agree with them or not, they
are Americans who have a
right to vote for any candidate.
Victory, however, doesn’t give
anybody the justification for
spreading hate, especially on
campus. Hate crimes, such as
violently attacking those of the
Muslim faith, are completely
unacceptable. To any Trump
voters who now feel they have
the right to express their views
in inappropriate ways, your
candidate says “Stop it.”
A
large
proportion
of
Conservatives
and
Trump
voters are not the racist, sexist,
homophobic bigots that they are
made out to be. While it is only
the miniscule proportion that
seems to be having the loudest
voice, most Conservatives are
bundled with the extremists.
This campus, supposedly one of
diversity, makes most of us feel
uncomfortable
in
discussing
our opinions. This isn’t a short-
term problem — it is systemic
and long-lasting. We have dealt
with professors saying it’s OK
to hate Republicans; we have
political protests — supported
by
the
University
of
Michigan’s
administration
—
fueling hate against
a
major
political
party and ideology.
If
I
wanted
to
wear
Republican
apparel to one of
my
classes,
there
is probably a good
chance I would be
verbally or physically
attacked. That type
of ideological intolerance should
not be condoned at a place that
prides itself on intellectualism
and diversity, no matter how
strong the feelings we have for or
against a certain candidate are.
For those with different
political beliefs from those
of Conservatives like myself,
I understand your anger and
fear. I get that a lot of what
President-elect
Trump
says
scares minority communities on
this campus. Faced with slurs,
inappropriate
language
and
the talk of threatening policies,
there has certainly been much
hate. But if you look past his
campaign rhetoric, most of the
actual policies on immigration
or LGBTQ issues, for example,
are not radical at all — they
are actually more moderate
than what other Conservative
candidates proposed. I implore
anyone who is upset at the
outcome of the election and
who feels scared for whatever
reason to read the president-
elect’s policies.
Hashtags
such
as
“#NotMyPresident”
not
only
represent
denial
and
immaturity;
they
represent
intolerance.
As
much
as
some may disagree with the
president-elect,
he
will
be
our president. As Secretary
Clinton said, “Donald Trump
is going to be our president.
We owe him an open mind
and the chance to lead.” While
a similar campus movement
by
Conservatives
titled
“#NotMyCampus” — through
which right-leaning students
voiced their objections on the
University administration’s bias
against conservative students
— exists, it is very different.
Conservatives
here
have
specific complaints about the
school administration’s actions
regarding
political
beliefs,
whereas
“#NotMyPresident”
supporters are merely reacting
to a loss by refusing to let go of
controversial statements by the
president-elect.
The campus administration
would
be
wise
to
heed
Secretary
Clinton’s
words.
Those on both sides argue
that campus leaders have a lot
to do. Whatever solutions the
University pursues, I hope it
keeps students of all political
backgrounds in mind. Those
of
all
faiths,
backgrounds,
experiences
and
political
beliefs have the right to be
heard and the right to express
their opinions. The problems
on this campus are not one-
sided — they are widespread
and deeply rooted. There is a
current culture among students
of being afraid to voice their
opinions, of not accepting each
other for what they believe
and feeling their environments
are hostile. No matter one’s
political opinion, people of all
sides don’t feel like they can
truly speak their minds — and
the administration needs to
help in an unbiased way.
Margaret Thatcher once said,
“I always cheer up immensely
if an attack is particularly
wounding because I think, well,
if they attack one personally,
it means they have not a single
political argument left.” As
we move past the election,
we should strive to return to
political debates, not personal
ones. In an election in which
both sides sank to the lowest
levels of political discourse, it
is up to us to return to policy
and ideas, not personality and
labels. We need to forget this
election, move on from the hate
and work on ideas.
MAX
RYSZTAK
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
Brett Graham
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Max Ryszatk can be reached at
mrysztak@umich.edu.
COLLEGE DEMOCRATS | OP-ED
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY | COLUMN
Taking off the blindfold
I
t’s been a hard two weeks.
It’s been two weeks on
a
long
and
extremely
emotional roller coaster. From
disbelief to hurt to
anger to annoyance
to uncertainty to
motivation,
the
outcome
of
the
2016
presidential
election
had
me
feeling
each
of
these to the highest
degree,
none
lasting more than a
day but each more
intense than the
last.
By
chance,
I had planned on going to
Cincinnati, Ohio, the Thursday
after the election. What was
meant to be a lone road trip
to the place I grew up ended
up being my first excursion
in a long time from the liberal
bubble of Ann Arbor.
I grew up in Cincinnati, born
and raised in a quintessential
suburban
neighborhood
that
I am thankful for every day.
However, unlike myself, most of
my neighbors and my classmates
were
from
conservative
families. My earliest experience
with politics was during the
2004
presidential
election.
My staunchly liberal parents
put out John Kerry signs on
our front lawn, which quickly
disappeared the next day. When
this happened, I was sent to one
of the three liberal families in
my neighborhood to pick up
another sign, hoping it would
last longer than the previous
one. Similarly, in 2008 and
2012, our Obama signs stood
out in a field of McCain and
Romney ones. By no means was
Cincinnati as a whole on the
right side of the spectrum, but
the suburban and rural
parts of the city were
more red than they
were blue.
As
I
grew
older
and formed my own
left-wing
beliefs,
I
always had an uneasy
feeling when politics
become the topic of
conversations. In fact,
I would try to avoid
them,
not
wanting
to stand out or be
one of the few liberal voices
in the conversation. Yet, these
conversations happened, and I
inevitably learned the value of
understanding the other side, as
many of its members were my
closest friends and neighbors.
When I came to the University
of Michigan, I was in heaven. As
with many college campuses, the
liberal energy was infectious.
Living in an environment where
the majority of people believed
what I believed and supported
many of the same causes I did
was a refreshing change from
feeling politically out of place
in the community in which I
grew up. Additionally, the fact
that I was living in the Obama
era naturally gave me more
confidence in my liberal beliefs.
It made it easier to bear the
conservative majority in my
Cincinnati suburb, and fully
embrace the comfort of a liberal
Ann Arbor. No longer did I feel
like a political minority, but
rather a part of the majority.
No
longer
did
I
approach
political
conversations
with
apprehension but instead with
excitement. I had an eagerness
to talk to classmates who had
similar beliefs, classmates I
expected to have similar beliefs.
The four hours traveling
back home were four hours
of thinking to myself: how?
How could America elect a
completely unqualified man to
the most powerful job in the
world? Ironically, my drive
down I-75 was a drive through
Trump land, through the middle
area of Ohio where Mr. Trump
garnered much of his support. I
passed numerous Trump signs
that had not yet been taken
down, from small ones I had
to squint to see to huge ones
that were impossible to miss.
I had just left a campus where
disappointment
and
sadness
were extremely prevalent on
the faces of students. Yet, the
farther I got from Ann Arbor,
passing Trump strongholds I
had seen colored a deep red on
the New York Times electoral
map just days before, the results
of the election became real. The
towns I passed and communities
I drove by radiated victory
while I felt utter defeat. But I
still didn’t understand why they
could support a candidate like
Trump. Even worse, I realized I
hadn’t made the effort to.
Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be reached
at anuroy@umich.edu.
ANU
ROY
CHAUDHURY
University of Michigan’s chapter of
College Democrats.
E
very passing day of this
election
cycle
made
me feel frozen in place.
Every day I could tell you some
crazy thing Trump had said
or relate some attempt Clinton
had made to seem normal, but
I couldn’t garner the energy to
volunteer or get involved in any
way. While many chalked up this
fatigue to historically unpopular
candidates, I’ve chalked it up
to a more fundamental change
in the 2016 climate: an inability
to actually affect voters with
facts. My whole civic education
has been based upon the notion
that our civic system is based on
rational,
fact-oriented
debate.
Maybe this was naive to believe
from the beginning, but this
election cycle has proven the
notion entirely irrelevant.
2016 will be regarded as the
year fact finally died. The Oxford
Dictionary has made it official,
declaring “post-truth” as the 2016
Word of the Year. However, truth
has clearly been on its deathbed
for a while now. Eleven years ago,
during the first episode of “The
Colbert Report,” Stephen Colbert
introduced the world to the
concept of truthiness, defined by
him as “the belief in what you feel
to be true, rather than what the
facts support.” At the time, it was
a joke on how maybe the reasons
for invading Iraq were in Bush’s
heart, among other issues, but it
rings eerily true in today’s politics.
Lying isn’t new to United
States politics — it’s why we have
newspapers and fact-checking
organizations to hold politicians
accountable.
But
the
sheer
scale of President-elect Donald
Trump’s lies has changed politics
for the worse. PolitiFact rated
70 percent of the statements
it evaluated from Trump as
having some degree of falsehood.
Politico evaluated every one of
Trump’s and Clinton’s statements
over a week-long period of the
campaign, and found that Trump
said 87 falsehoods in five days, or
one lie every three minutes and 15
seconds of public speaking that
week. In comparison, Clinton
said eight lies over the same
period. It’s clear that those who
tilted the scales for Trump didn’t
do so because of his penchant for
truth or morality, but if voters
were unfazed by lies, what will
convince them?
This
problem
lies
deeper
than just a single candidate.
A BuzzFeed analysis showed
that in the last three months
of the campaign, stories on
fake news sites generated more
Facebook
engagement
than
stories from real, reputable news
organizations. This fake news
transcended
candidates
and
even parties. Another BuzzFeed
analysis from last month showed
that
popular
hyper-partisan
Facebook
pages
from
both
liberals and conservatives had
alarming rates of falsehoods.
In the aftermath of this
election, many on these pages
have
discussed
what
must
happen
for
Democrats
to
reclaim Congress and the White
House, including developing an
economic message more suitable
for Rust Belt worries. But none of
that matters if politics has turned
into a race about who can lie their
way out of more situations. A
new trade policy that will greatly
benefit Michigan’s auto workers
won’t mean a thing if news stories
about it appear in news feeds
alongside fake news articles
claiming that globalist liberals
want to send all jobs to Canada.
This is an issue that should
deeply trouble anyone who cares
about electing leaders based on
facts and policies rather than
rhetoric and personal insults —
not just liberals trying to change
the leaning of our leaders. To
their credit, Facebook and Google
have
recognized
the
issue,
but it will take more than just
media companies to correct it.
It will take leaders on both sides
of the aisle to rebuild trust in
mainstream news sources instead
of attacking them.
On election night, while the
news of a Trump presidency
caught me by surprise, it wasn’t
something I wasn’t ready for. Polls
consistently showed him within
a margin of error of beating
Clinton. FiveThirtyEight’s final
forecast gave Trump a 28.6
percent
chance
of
winning,
roughly the chance of flipping
two coins and having them land
on the same side.
Democratic
congressional
leaders, on the other hand, didn’t
have a plan for what to do given
a Trump victory. This remarkable
ignorance of the facts shaping
our world should be a wake-up
call for all, indicating that we
need to get outside our bubbles
of information and engage with
tough realities. It won’t be as easy
as reading a personally generated
list of stories, but when has
democracy ever been easy?
Resurrecting Truth
Jeremy Kaplan is an LSA
sophomore.
JEREMY KAPLAN | OP-ED
Read more online at
michigandaily.com