O
n Oct. 11, 1975, NBC
released a show called
“Saturday
Night
Live,” which brought with it
a
revolutionary
new
genre
that
was
based
around
sketch comedy. One
particular
recurring
sketch within the first
few episodes set a
successful tone that the
show, and many others
like it, would continue.
Cast member Chevy
Chase sat behind a
desk in a mock Oval
Office
and
clumsily
reported to the United States
as the president and University
alum, Gerald Ford. The era of
television’s comedic presidential
impersonations began with Chevy
Chase
hilariously
capitalizing
on the fact that President Ford
unfortunately had a few accidents
that made him appear clumsy and
awkward — traits that “SNL” and
Chase transformed into comedic
gold. And all of this was received,
both by the American public and by
Ford, to some degree, in a positive
and jovial way.
And this sketch continued.
Every president and presidential
candidate following Gerald Ford
was impersonated and recreated
through several talented actors
capitalizing on any trivial claim
that could be stretched and
overacted to make America laugh.
From Dana Carvey as the WASP-y
and nasally George H.W. Bush,
to Kate McKinnon playing the
almost robotic Secretary Hillary
Clinton, “SNL” used the men and
women seeking and holding the
office of the president as a means
of relatable comedy. It was all
easy to write, easy to
act and recognizable
to
every
American.
It suddenly became
part of the job — when
becoming
president,
you
should
expect
your own comedic and
moronic doppelganger
to constantly satirize
every potential choice
you make.
So when the first
episode
of
“SNL”
following the election capitalized
on the fact that the Trump
transition was not running as
smoothly as some had hoped, Alec
Baldwin put his incredible acting
skills and the seemingly endless
amount of comedic material to
use. He delivered a hilarious
performance of our president-elect,
frantically asking Siri, “How do I
beat ISIS?” and realizing that the
border along Mexico is actually
2,000 miles long.
And almost right on schedule,
our president-elect dropped all
other
“adult”
responsibilities
surrounding
the
peaceful
transition
of
presidential
administrations, and fell again
into his juvenile and bully-
like Twitter rants in which he
condemned the entirety of “SNL”
and the poor impersonation they
had presented of him. This trend,
this ongoing sketch that satirizes
the most recognizable position in
the world, is crossing the line for
our president-elect.
Yet, I view this single outburst of
angry emotion from a 70-year-old
billionaire as one of many that prove
to serve as testament to the fragility
of his ego and the focus of his actual
attention. Throughout the entirety
of his life, President-elect Trump
has
focused
an
unbelievable
amount of time, money and effort
toward the retribution of those
who criticize his name, looks
and actions. From the constant
threatening
correspondence
toward
Spy
Magazine,
which
stated he was a “short-fingered
vulgarian,” to the actual lawsuits he
filed against comedian Bill Maher,
who stated he would donate $5
million to charity if birther Donald
Trump could prove his mother was
not an orange-haired orangutan,
Trump hunted down any critique
of himself with every asset on hand.
Anyone who damages his ego is a
viable target, and as demonstrated
by the “failing” New York Times in
its piece, “The 282 People, Places
and Things Donald Trump has
insulted on Twitter” — a list that
includes every single major-party
presidential
candidate,
entire
nations, every major TV network,
journalists, the residential lectern
in the White House, a gold star
family and my favorite, the pope.
And one could assume that all
of those petty and ridiculous rants
and immature verbal onslaughts
usually ending in “Bad!!” would
somehow
guarantee
that
this
insufferable 5-year-old would be
deemed incapable of becoming
president.
Yet
America
has
surprised us all again.
But now Trump and his fragile
image of himself holds the most
powerful office in the world.
And the implications of this
situation should be very clear. His
pettiness and lack of affability
toward comedic representations
of himself have been blatantly
demonstrated
throughout
the
entirety of his public life. The
man cannot stand an ounce of
criticism — whether it be Alec
Baldwin simply restating things
Trump has said verbatim, or
the pope saying that building
walls is not the Christian answer
to immigration issues, he has
countered with some of the
most deplorable and disgusting
rhetoric
within
American
political discourse.
So if it is even possible, set aside
the other horrific factors that will
become the Trump presidency.
Set aside Vice President-elect
Mike Pence and his blatant hatred
toward women’s and LGBTQ
rights. Set aside National Security
Adviser Mike Flynn, who believes
Islam is an ideology meant to
destroy America. Set aside Steve
Bannon, a man who has been
the voice for racists and white
supremacists across the country.
Set
aside
every
disturbing
thought associated with who and
what will influence this future
administration, and simply picture
how Trump will respond to such
goofy and comical criticisms from
“SNL” when he has the power of
presidency behind him.
4 — Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
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
T
he Oxford Dictionaries
just named “post-truth”
the word of the year. They
define “post-truth” as “relating
to or denoting circumstances
in which objective facts are less
influential in shaping
public opinion than
appeals to emotion
and
personal
belief.” The popular
examples of “post-
truth”
culture
are
the rhetoric used by
the Brexit campaign
and Donald Trump’s
campaign.
There’s
an
interview with Newt
Gingrich at the RNC
that
is
painfully
representative of the
“post-truth”
era.
A
news anchor says to Gingrich
that violent crime rates are
down. Gingrich corrects her
that there are some cities
where violent crime is up, and
the
news
anchor
concedes
this point, but maintains that
though in some places violent
crime is up, nationally violent
crime rates are down. Gingrich
says that doesn’t matter. He says
that when everyday Americans
wake up in the morning, they
don’t feel safe, and they feel like
violent crime rates are up. The
news anchor says they might
feel that way, but the facts
say otherwise: Violent crime
rates are down; we are “safer.”
Gingrich then says, “No, that’s
your view” and she says, “No,
these are facts,” these are FBI
statistics, and he says, “What I
said is also a fact.”
No, what Gingrich says is
not a fact, it’s a belief. But
we
can’t
just
dismiss
the
conflation between facts and
beliefs as something only done
by power hungry, insincere
politicians.
The
distinction
between facts and beliefs is
increasingly blurred, and not
only in the realm of electoral
politics. There is, in fact, a legal
precedent for the murky and
vanishing difference between
facts and beliefs, and it’s found
in the Supreme Court ruling in
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,
the court ruled that closely held
for-profit private corporations
can be exempt from certain
laws
that
go
against
the
corporation owner’s “sincerely
held religious beliefs” if there
is another way to enforce the
law through means that won’t
violate the owner’s religious
beliefs. What I’m interested in
is the concept of a “sincerely
held religious belief.”
The “sincerely held religious
belief” in question in this case
had to do with contraception.
The Green family, the owners
of Hobby Lobby, and the Hahn
Family, the owners of Conestoga
Wood
Specialties,
both rejected having
to
provide
their
employees
with
access
(through
insurance under the
Affordable Care Act)
to four specific types
of
birth
control:
IUDs,
copper
and
hormonal,
and
emergency
contraception
pills,
Plan B and ella.
The Greens and
the Hahns believe(d)
that
life
begins
at
conception, and by conception
they mean fertilization. They
morally
reject
these
four
types of birth control because
they think they can prevent a
fertilized egg from implanting
in the uterus, which they
consider to be an abortion. The
issue here is that scientists who
actually study contraceptives
and the reproductive system
say that IUDs and emergency
contraceptive pills do not stop
an already fertilized egg from
implanting in the uterus.
IUDs
and
emergency
contraceptive pills will not
stop an existing pregnancy.
They are not abortion pills.
Emergency
contraception
works by preventing the sperm
from fertilizing the egg, either
by trapping the sperm in mucus
or preventing the egg from
being released and fertilized,
depending on the kind of
contraception you take. If the
sperm has already fertilized
the
egg,
the
emergency
contraception will have no
impact. It will not stop a
fertilized egg from implanting
in the uterus and it will not do
anything if a fertilized egg has
already implanted in the uterus.
This is all to say: There are
factual, biological explanations
for how these processes work.
But in the Hobby Lobby case,
SCOTUS decided that none of
this matters: It doesn’t matter
if your beliefs are factually
accurate so long as they are
sincerely held. It doesn’t matter
that emergency contraception
doesn’t cause an abortion, it
only matters that people feel
like emergency contraception
causes an abortion. In effect,
SCOTUS ruled that facts matter
less
than
certain
powerful
people’s feelings.
The interview with Gingrich
and the SCOTUS ruling in favor
of Hobby Lobby support Oxford
Dictionaries’
nomination
of
“post-truth” as the word of the
year. Objective facts appear to
have lost ground in the minds
of many people in our country,
evident in statements from
current politicians, but also
extending back to Hobby Lobby
and beyond.
What’s
also
problematic
is that this acceptance of
subjective facts (i.e., feelings)
as objective facts only seems to
be acceptable when it’s done by
certain powerful people (read:
conservatives and Republicans)
to support and maintain their
political interests. In cases
where subjective facts ought
to play a larger role in the
discussion, such as in the
case of sexual assault or when
people of color, LGBTQ people,
Muslims, etc. express feeling
terrified at the reality of a
Trump presidency, those same
conservatives and Republicans
mock the use of feelings and
emotions in discussions.
What’s apparent from all
this is that the fact/feeling
distinction operates in lopsided
ways.
People
of
oppressed
identities
and
survivors
of
sexual assault, among other
people, are not allotted the
same leeway to make arguments
based on feelings, to have their
feelings taken as facts, as
personal realities and truths,
as are their white, conservative
counterparts.
There
is
an
exclusive group of people and
movements that is allowed to
use feelings as facts, and while
“post-truth”
is
definitely
a
thing with legal and historic
precedent,
using
feelings
as facts is not accessible for
everyone, even when it might
be necessary and useful.
Selective post-truth precedent
Michael Mordarski can be reached
at mmordars@umich.edu.
MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN
CLARISSA DONNELLEY-DEROVEN | COLUMN
I
n recent years it seems that
we’ve seen the ideological
gap in this country transform
into more of an ideological chasm;
liberals and conservatives have
both retreated into
their
respective
corners and appear
ready to duke it out
for
the
foreseeable
future. Yet the mere
presence
of
such
a
stark
ideological
division
does
not
necessarily
mean
that either of the two
major political parties
are in a position to
take any votes for
granted, a lesson that Democrats
were forced to learn the hard way
during this election.
Many Democratic strategists
simply assumed that the same
coalition that propelled President
Barack Obama to two terms in the
White House would do the same
for Hillary Clinton, but it’s clear
now that this was not the case. As
the votes rolled in on election night
and Democratic strongholds such
as Michigan, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin flipped red for the first
time in years, many disheartened
liberals were left scratching their
heads and wondering how their
support could have splintered in
such a dramatic fashion.
If there is one lesson to be
learned from these defections, it
is that the party must do a better
job of appealing to working-
class white voters going forward.
While the Clinton campaign
focused heavily on emphasizing
Trump’s
weaknesses
and
on
promoting
important
social
causes, the campaign lacked a
strong economic message, which
may have inevitably led to her
downfall
in
the
Midwestern
states in which she faltered. The
message of “Stronger Together”
is certainly a lovely sentiment,
but it seems to have done little
to inspire blue-collar
voters to go to the
polls, as exit polls
showed Donald Trump
defeating
Clinton
by 30 points among
whites with no college
degree in Michigan,
Wisconsin, Ohio and
Pennsylvania.
It’s clear that for
the party to succeed
in the Rust Belt going
forward, it will need to
craft a strong economic message
and dedicate a great deal of time
and energy toward winning back
many of the working-class white
voters who decisively swung
Republican this year. Strangely
enough, the solution to this issue
may in fact lie with the loser
of the Democratic primary,
Bernie Sanders.
Despite
being
defeated
by
Clinton in the primary, it’s
clear that the populist policies
of Sanders struck a chord in
the Midwest. By attacking free
trade proposals like the Trans-
Pacific Partnership and stressing
the unfairness of the current
economic system, Sanders was
able to pull off surprise victories
in states such as Michigan and
Wisconsin. As a result, in the
aftermath of the general election,
many Democrats have been forced
to confront the uncomfortable
question of whether or not the
results would have been the same
had
Sanders
been
victorious
during the primaries.
While
this
election
has
certainly
humbled
me
into
realizing that nothing can ever
truly be known with certainty, it
does appear that Sanders would
have been more successful among
the demographics that Clinton
struggled with throughout the
course of the election. With this
in mind, the Democratic Party
may believe that realigning their
platform with Sanders and the
progressive wing of the party
offers the best chance to succeed
in future elections. Not only
would this shift toward more
progressive policies aid in their
courting of working-class white
voters, but it would also greatly
aid the party in attracting young
voters, one in 10 approximately of
which voted to elect a third-party
candidate this year.
The
support
that
Sanders
received
from
young
voters
throughout the primary season
is certainly well-documented, but
the raw numbers are absolutely
astonishing, as a study found that
as of June, he had received more
votes from voters under the age of
30 than both Trump and Clinton
combined. The DNC is certainly
aware of this phenomenon, as
Clinton did, in fact, shift away
from many of her centrist views
and embrace more progressive
policies throughout the course
of the general election. As the
party turns its attention to the
next
generation
of
potential
Democratic
voters,
it
seems
plausible that they will begin to
employ this strategy from the get-
go in future elections and truly
embrace progressive politics.
Where do liberals go from here?
JEFF BROOKS | COLUMN
Read more online at
michigandaily.com
Jeff Brooks can be reached at
brooksjs@umich.edu.
Thin-skinned Trump
JEFF
BROOKS
MICHAEL
MORDARSKI
JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE IOVINO AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU
CLARISSA
DONNELLY-
DEROVEN
It doesn’t matter
if your beliefs
are factually
accurate so
long as they are
sincerely held.
Clarissa Donnelly-DeRoven can be
reached at cedon@umich.edu.
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.